JUDGMENT 1. - Murad has filed this revision petition against the conviction under section 25, Arms Act. He was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer and this conviction has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur so far as the offence of Section 25, Arms Act is concerned and he has been sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 100/-. The prosecution case is that on 2-5-74 Superintendent of Police of Jaisalmer informed the S.H.O., Jaisalmer that in village Dabri that few Pakistan smugglers have come. The accused along with others was seen running from the village but the police party chased and arrested them. In all 4 persons were arrested out of which 8 cartridges were found from the possession of the petitioner. 2. After presenting of the challan two accused Ibrahim and Gena absconded. Murad and Hanif faced trial for an offence u/s 13 (2) of the Foreigners Act and 23 of Arms Act. The conviction u/s 13 (2) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer was set aside in appeal but the conviction of Murad u/s 25 of Arms Act has been confirmed. 3. Mr. Choudhari the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the prosecution case is demolished by its own witnesses. He pointed out that the two witnesses PW 4 Sultan Singh and PW 6 Shivdan Singh produced by the prosecution themselves clearly and categorically states in the examination in chief itself that no cartridges were found at the time of recovery from Murad although some other material like blades etc., were found. 4. Confronted with the above submissions of Mr. Choudhari, the learned Deputy Government Advocate contended that the recovery memo Ex P. 2 bears signature of Hajari Singh and Jawan Singh, S.H.O. and both have corroborated the recovery of cartridges from the accused Murad. Mr. Bhati argued that it was immaterial that the two witnesses pointed out by Mr. Choudhari have given a contradictory version because they are not witnesses of recovery but were only deployed to chase the accused and catch hold of them. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Bhati argued that it was immaterial that the two witnesses pointed out by Mr. Choudhari have given a contradictory version because they are not witnesses of recovery but were only deployed to chase the accused and catch hold of them. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. It is true that the recovery memo mentions that cartridges were recovered from the accused Murad and this recovery memo is signed by PW Jawan Singh and Hajari Singh who have both corroborated and proved the recovery. But it is equally true that PW 4 Sultan Singh and PW 6 Shivdan Singh in their examination in chief itself have negatived the theory of recovery of cartridges from accused Murad. If they would have shown their ignorance of recovery then the submissions of Mr. Bhati was worth acceptance. Again if the prosecution would have taken steps to declare them hostile and would have shown that their version in this court is either an improvement or contradictory to the police version then also would have ignored their evidence. Admittedly that has not been done. If that is so how can the prosecution be allowed to disown its own child in such a light manner. 6. The cardial principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. After reading the statement of Sultan Singh and Shivdan Singh who clearly and categorically rules out the possibility of recovery of cartridges from the accused Murad, I have not been able to persuade myself to remove the doubts created by them. I am convinced that the recovery has become very doubtful and the benefit of doubt should go to the accused. 7. The result is that this revision application is accepted. The petitioner accused Murad is acquitted of offence u/s 25 of Arms Act. He is on bail and need not surrender.Revision accepted. *******