R. C. LAHOTI, J. ( 1 ) THE accused/respondent has been acquitted by the Trial Court from a charge of offence under section 25/27 of the Arms Act read with section 11 and 13 of M. P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Ksherta Adhiniyam, 1981, with which acquittal the State is aggrieved. The charge was that on 4/7/1984 at about 6-30 p. m. in the forest of Sukhdeva P. S. Lahar, accused, respondent was found. in illegal possession of A. 12 bore single barrel gun, kept for illegal purposes in the dacoity affected area ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that the accusee /respondent was a proclaimed offender with It prize of ten thousand rupees on his head vide Ex. P15. He Willa member of the Jana of dictates headed by Ghanshyam. On the night between 3rd and 4th July 1914, the Police party laid an ambush on reviving information about the movements of the dacoits. At about 3. 30 a. m. on 4. 7. 84 the Police force heard the sound of human foot steps. The unknown was challenged, who started running. Torches were flashed and the accused/respondent was apprehended after a little chase. He was arrested. A. 12 bore, gun and a few live and empty cartridges were recovered from his possession and were seized. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined Shivram Singh, A. S. I. (P. W 3) and Rawlakhan Singh Bhadoria (P. W 5) SO P. S. Lahar, who were members of the police party laying ambush to prove that the accused/respondent was possessed of the gun when apprehended. Other witnesses are formal ones. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court assigned 5 reasons for founding the order of acquittal (1) that P. W 3, and should be deemed to interested in the case; and P. W. 5 u re Police officials (ii) that the Police did not take care of keeping independent public witnesses present at the time of seizure; (iii) R. D. Mishra, S. D. O. (P) and Virendrapal Singh Tomar, Head constable two, material witnesses were not examined; (iv) that P. W. 3 and P. W 5, contradict each other on a very material point; and, (v) that the defence wetness Udaisingh appears to be trustworthy and reliable demolishing the prosecution story. ( 5 ) ON the tint two points, it is difficult to agree with the Trial Court. ( 5 ) ON the tint two points, it is difficult to agree with the Trial Court. There is no law nor a presumption that the Police Officials are always interested in their case or that they are always hers. The law is that their testimony bas to be appreciated like the testimony of any other witness, taking a reasonable view of the role played by them as Police Officers Similarly it would be too much to expect that public witnesses would accompany the Police throughout the night when the Police party was laying an ambush and the possibility of an encounter could not be ruled out, who would run the risk, of his life and remain with the Police in the jungle throughout the night? Such a reasoning could not and should not have been adopted. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, on the other 3 points, it would be difficult to disagree with the Trial Court R. D. Mishra S. D. O. Police was the leader of the Police party. According to the prosecution witnesses he was the first to see the accused/ respondent. He chased the accused. Virendrapal Singh Tomar, the Police Head Constable, was awarded by the State for apprehending accused/ respondent, a proclaimed and prized dacoit. These two witnesses were certainly material witnesses and naturally knew the facts better then other members of the Police party. Their non-examination thus gives II. rise to am adverse inference against the prosecution because no reason has been unsigned for their nonexamination. According to Shivram 5mm (P. W 3) the gun was loaded when seized, while according to Ramlakhan (P. W 5) it was not loaded the two fact cannot co-exist. It is contradiction on the most material point and hitting directly at the genuineness of the seizure. Lastly, the defence wit ness his been believed by the Trial Court, who deposed that there was no ambush, as suggested, but the accused/respondent had himself surrendered before the Police and was not armed with any weapon at the time of surrender which took place in his presence and through his mediation. To believe or not to believe a witness, for reasons, is, primarily in domain of the Trial court and it is well settled that while hearing an appeal against acquittal, the High Court, would not interfere merely because it may be inclined to take a different view of the evidence. To believe or not to believe a witness, for reasons, is, primarily in domain of the Trial court and it is well settled that while hearing an appeal against acquittal, the High Court, would not interfere merely because it may be inclined to take a different view of the evidence. ( 7 ) THE sum and substance of the foregoing discussion is that though the Trial Court has partly erred, yet on the last 3 counts it was a reasonable view of the case that could have been taken by the Trial Court and hence would not permit this Court interfering with the order of acquittal. ( 8 ) THE appeal is dismissed. The order of acquittal is maintained. Shri A. B. Tripathi, Advocate appeared for the accused /respondent having been assigned the brief by Legal Aid Committee and his fair and faithful presentation of the facts and law must be appreciated. Appeal dismissed .