JUDGMENT Sinha, J. - This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh by which, he, with some modification, affirmed the judgment of a learned Magistrate of the first class. 2. The applicant, Panda Inderjit, is a respectable zamiadar in Anupshahr, in the district of Bulandshahr. He pays Rs. 5,000 on account of land revenue and also carries on some other business. He has four sons, Anangpal, Bijaipal, Gajrajpal and Ram Rikhpal. The first two are of age and live with their father. The third, Gajraj, is a youth, receiving his education in the Meerut College. The youngest is a minor, studying in some school. 3. Inderjit and his two sons, Anangpal and Bijaipal, were placed on their trial before a learned Magistrate for an offence u/s 19 (f) of the Arms Act. After some time, proceedings were taken against Gajrajpal also. Gajrajpal evidently was living away from the house and how the prosecution thought of taking any steps against him defies one's wit. The family, however, may be thankful to it for some mercy when it spared at least Ramrikhpal. In November, 1942, Sardar Bashir Ahmad Khan, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Anupshahr, was informed that Panda Inderjit of village Bailon and his sons were in possession of unlicensed fire-arms. While on tour he made confidential enquiries from different persons and at different places and the above information was, according to him, found to be correct. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Khan, on or about the 26th of January, 1943, conveyed the Information to the District Magistrate, who directed him to insattute a search. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Khan, after arranging for a police lorry and police force, himself decided to raid the house of the accused on the 29th of January, 1943. He, along with the Circle Inspector, Nisar Ahmad Zobairi, and a few police constable left Bulandshahr for Anupshahr, on the evening of the 28th of January, 1943, and reached their destination in the night. On the following morning with the Tahsildar and the Station Officer of Anupshahr they left for Dibai on the way to village Bailon. At Dibai Mr. Bashir Ahmad Khan sent a message to the station officer, Agha Badrul Hasan, and directed him to come over with the second officer incharge and a few more constables. After passing Dibai, Badrul Hasan enquired From the Magistrate their destination. At Dibai Mr. Bashir Ahmad Khan sent a message to the station officer, Agha Badrul Hasan, and directed him to come over with the second officer incharge and a few more constables. After passing Dibai, Badrul Hasan enquired From the Magistrate their destination. The party was then informed that they were going to Bailon to raid the house of Panda Inderjit. On their way, at a place called Kesri Kalan, about three miles from Bailon. They found one Munshi Khan and one Hemraj Singh. They picked them up to witness the search. The Sub-Divibional Magistrate divided his party into two and sent the Tahsildar of Anupshahr with small police party to the enclosure of Panda Inderjit, while the other left for his house. A few constables were directed to encircle the house of the Panda, while Mr. Bashis Ahmad Khan, the Station Officer of Dibai and the witnesses went to the front of the house of the accused. They called Panda Inderjit, but his two sons came out On enquiry the Deputy Magistrate was old that the Panda was in his encloure. A constable was sent to call him and he arrived. He was then told that the Deputy Magistrate was previously informed that ho was in possession of unlicensed fire arms and consequently his house would be searched Inderjit denied the charge. A search followed and a large number of offending articles were found. 4. The above is, in brief, the story for the prosecution. 5. The accused denied the charge. Their case in the main was that they owed their misfortune to the displeasure of the Magistracy. Panda Inderjit had contributed very largely to the various war loans and funds, so much so that he bad received Sanads for his meritorious conduct. The call for subscriptions persisted and a stage came when he could no longer stand the pressure. Either he refused to make any further contributions, or they were not so substantial as they used to be till 1941. This roused the ire of the magistracy and the present prosecution is its result. It was definite case of the defence that these arms were planted by the police, or the police bad managed to have them planted. 6. The case was in its initial stages, tried by a Magistrate named Mr. Brij Bahadur. This roused the ire of the magistracy and the present prosecution is its result. It was definite case of the defence that these arms were planted by the police, or the police bad managed to have them planted. 6. The case was in its initial stages, tried by a Magistrate named Mr. Brij Bahadur. Under the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice it was transferred to Aligarh and Mr. Jagram Singh, the learned Magistrate, found that, although the prosecution had not successfully established a case against Gajrajpal, the case against Inderjit and his two sons, Anangpal and Bijaipal, was made out. In the result, he sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, while agreeing with the learned Magistrate so far as Inderjit was concerned, although he reduceed the sentence from nine months to six months, remitting the fine altogether, disagreed with him so far as Anangpal and Bijaipal were concerned. These two he found not guilty. Inderjit has come to this Court in revision. 7. The judgment of the learned Magistrate, Mr. Jagram Singh, reads from end to end as a sort of Special pleading. He has wound it up by giving a testimonial to Sardar Bashir Ahmad Khan. The credit of this magnificent work goes to Sardar Bashir Ahmad Khan, the then "Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Anupshahr, at whose initative the unlicensed arms and ammunitions have been recovered from the house of the accused. I cannot suggest any reward to this Gazetted Officer in view of his position. However, I would bring to the notice of the authorities to recognise his services in this connection. The P. I. M. Abdul Hafiz Khan also deserves credit for the excellent and independent way in which be has conducted this ease. 8. It requires an effort of imagination how the learned Magistrate comes to regard the conduct of Bashir Ahmad Khan as any thing but deserving of condemnation. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is itself replete with remarks which show that Sardar Bashir Ahmad Khan, in the course of the enquiry, conducted himself in a manner which, to say the least, reflects discredit upon him. I shall let the learned Sessions Judge speak for himself when I go in fuller detail. 9. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is itself replete with remarks which show that Sardar Bashir Ahmad Khan, in the course of the enquiry, conducted himself in a manner which, to say the least, reflects discredit upon him. I shall let the learned Sessions Judge speak for himself when I go in fuller detail. 9. Before addressing myself to this aspect of the matter, I propose to come to closer quarters with the facts. The raid was made by a party under the leadership of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Khan, assisted by the two police inspectors, Badrul Hasan and Nisar Ahmad Zohari. Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure casts an obligation upon Mr. Bashir Ahmad Khan to associate with himself, " two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality," before undertaking or executing the search. The importance of this provision of law was emphasised in Sadlu v. Emperor A I R 1934 All. 37 Says Niamatullah J. Where respectable persons can be found in the neighbourhood, and the police officer making a search takes with him persons whose respectability is questionable or who come from a distant locality the inference is that he was prompted by a desire to have such witnesses as would be easily persuaded to support any story which he might put forward. 10. In Ram Chandra v. Emperor 1935 A W R 313 Mr. Justice Bennet went so far as to hold that the conviction, in the absence of such witnesses, could not be sustained. Both Munshl Khan and Hemraj Singh have been condemned by the learned Sessions Judge himself. Neither belongs to the locality. Hemraj, besides being a stranger, is also condemned by him on other grounds. There are two rival parties one headed by Roshan Singh and the other by Inderjit The relations between the two are strained. Hemraj belongs to the party of Roshan. Summing up his opinion, about him the learned Sessions Judge says This Hemraj Singh was challaned with Roshan Singh in the aforementioned criminal case u/s 107 Cri. P. C. Thus Hemraj Singh is not a disinterested person, though he may be respectable in that he pays land revenue to the extent of Rs. 250. 11. On this finding, the applicant is entitled to say that the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not having been complied with, the prosecution is unsustainable. P. C. Thus Hemraj Singh is not a disinterested person, though he may be respectable in that he pays land revenue to the extent of Rs. 250. 11. On this finding, the applicant is entitled to say that the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not having been complied with, the prosecution is unsustainable. The learned Crown Counsel, however, contends that this provisions is not mandatory. The law requires that the officer in charge of the search should make honest efforts to secure the presence of respectable witnesses of the locality, but the search will not be vitiated if no such witness is available. There is no finding by the learned Judge that any attempt was made by Sardar Bashir Ahmad Khan to secure such witnesses and I am disposed to accede to the contention of the learned Counsel for the defence that the search was not a good search and the necessary foundation for a successful prosection had not been laid. 12. But in this case the defence is on surer ground. The learned Sessions Judge says that there is the evidence of Bashir Ahmad Khan, Nisar Ahmad Zobairi, and Badrul Hasan. If the evidence of the last two named is supported by the evidence of Sardar Bashir Khan, the Magistrate, it will be enough for the purposes of the prosecution. I have thus to see whether the evidence of Sardar Bashir Ahmad Khan is of such a character. His Official position no doubt raises in his favour a presumption of veracity. But the learned Sessions Judge himself, on a consideration of the entire materials, came to the conclusion that the conduct of Bashir Ahmad Khan left a great deal to be desired. A few quotations, out of a large number, from the judgment itself will be enongh to prove the character of this man. (a) The only inference from this conduct of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Khan can be that he is intentionally withholding facts, so that his connections with the war fund collections may not be established." (b) This would mean that the Deputy Magistrate is giving a wrong statement.... 13. It is surprising how the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction of the applicant on the testimony of a man of the character of Sardar Bashir Ahmad Khan. 14. 13. It is surprising how the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction of the applicant on the testimony of a man of the character of Sardar Bashir Ahmad Khan. 14. It appears to me that the accused is right when he said that the cause of his misfortune was either his reluctance to comply at all with the demands of the magistracy for contributions towards the war loans, or his inability to contribute as much as they wanted. The learned Sessions Judge himself says that: From the above facts, it is amply clear that the then Magistracy of Bulandshahr district was keen not only to secure the conviction of the four accused persons but also to harass them to the maximum. 15. It is useless to multiply instances. 16. This case bears a family likeness to the case of Rajendra Narayan Singh v. Emperor (1913) 18 I. C. 149. That was a case u/s 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The person involved there was a highly respectable zamindar in the district of Bhagalpur in Bihar. He somehow incurred the displeasure of the district authorities and fell a victim to it. The applicant before me, for reasons fully discussed by the learned Sessions Judge, displeased the district authorities and his misfortune is the result of that displeasure. 17. I, therefore, allow this application, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit the applicant. He is on bail and need not surrender. 18. Before parting with the case, I deem it my duty to say that this was a prosecution which should never have been initialed and, at all events, should not have been allowed to be disfigured by methods so dubious and by evidence of such a questionable character. It is never the purpose of the law that a prosecution should degenerate into a persecution. 19. In fairness, however, to the persons immediately in charge of the prosecution, I feel bound to say that, on a careful examination of the whole case, the impression left on my mind is that although they, or at least some of them, were highly placed and important members of the official hierarchy, the entire blame does not rest on them. It must be shared by people in the district, more highly placed than they and more important members of that hierarchy. 20. It must be shared by people in the district, more highly placed than they and more important members of that hierarchy. 20. In, Ram Chandra v. Emperor 1935 A W R 313 Bennet J. following an earlier decision of this Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 1934, directed that a copy of the judgment should be sent to the Inspector General of Police for such action, if any, as he desired to take. Following the above precedent, I direct that copies of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge as also of this Court be sent to the Provincial Government.