M. S. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) - The petitioner Manappa and Bhimanna were jointly tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yadgir, on the charge of the commission of the offence punishable under section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and were found to be guilty and convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment [or two months. Being aggrieved by the same, when they approached the Sessions Judge in appeal, the Sessions Judge while setting aside the conviction and sentence passed on Bhimanna, he having confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court in revision. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case as tried to be made out is: On a credible information said to have been received, P. W. 3 Ghouse Mohiuddin, COD Inspector, after having obtained search warrant from the Court to make a search of house bearing No. 1/98 of Hedgimadra village in Yadgir taluk, he went to the village on 22-11-1984, secured the essence of two panchas (P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) and went to the house in the village; the petitioner was present in the house, and he showed him the search warrant and in the presence of the panchas when, he took house search, he found Mos. Ito 25 in the house; he accordingly seized them under panchanama Ex; P. 1. P. W. 4 was also present at the time of the alleged search. After returning back to the Police Station, P. W. 3 lodged a complaint and, after making further investigation and, after arresting A-2 Bhimanna, on completion of the investigation, he sent up a charge sheet: ( 3 ) THE defence of the accused is of total denial. ( 4 ) P. Ws. 1 and 2 did not support the case of the prosecution. They were treated hostile and cross- examined by the learned A. P. P. However nothing beneficial to the prosecution was elicited in their cross-examination. The learned Magistrate, however, relying upon the evidence of house search as given by P. Ws. 3 and 4 came to the conclusion that accused were found in possession of Mos. 1 to 25 in the ho use. The learned Magistrate, however, relying upon the evidence of house search as given by P. Ws. 3 and 4 came to the conclusion that accused were found in possession of Mos. 1 to 25 in the ho use. ( 5 ) AS stated earlier, the Sessions Judge on appeal having set-aside the conviction and sentence on Accused No. 2, has found A-I alone guilty on the ground that he was present in the house when the house search was taken. ( 6 ) IN a case like this, where the search is allegedly made in the presence of panchas and the panchas do not support the prosecution case, or search having been made in their presence, that introduces a vital infirnlity in the case. Therefore, it is not at all safe to base conviction only on the evidence of I. Os. without there being even any evidence that the house from where the material objects were seized was in possession of the accused-petitioner, when the search was allegedly made. What is elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 3 on the contrary showed that there was no indication that the house searched was the one regarding which he had obtained the search warrant. No evidence has also been adduced to show that the particular house even belonged to the petitioner. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed on the accused petitioner cannot be sustained. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Judge are set-aside. Accused-petitioner is held to be not guilty and he is acquitted.