JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur under his judgment dated 19th July 1988 affirmed the conviction of the accused-petitioner under section 3/25 of the Arms Act. He also did not interfere in the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the learned Magistrate who had sentenced the accused petitioner to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case rests entirely on the evidence of police witness and not only no independent witnesses have been examined but none had witnessed the search. He contends that the entire case or the prosecution is such which cannot be believed. 3. There is no dispute that the case rests on the evidence of police witnesses alone. The learned courts below have said that the accused-petitioner was apprehended at about 10-11 p.m. at a place where no independent witness could have been available at that time. Therefore, courts below have relied on the case of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as aforesaid. 4. Before I refer to the evidence on record and discuss it, it may be stated that it is well known that if any police personnel leaves the police station his departure time is entered in the daily diary. The names of those police constables who accompany the police officer are also mentioned and as and when the police party returns to the police station, there is again an entry in the general diary. Therefore, the best evidence has been with held by the prosecution and the copies of the general diary have not been produced but there is no evidence of the prosecution that the police party left the police station after making the entry in the general diary and made the entry while returning. It cannot be believed that the police personnels have gone on patrolling duty as alleged but as appears that the case of the prosecution that they were patrolling. It was a dark night and surprisingly they have seen the three persons coming from a distance of 50 yards from a field. It cannot be believed that the police personnels have gone on patrolling duty as alleged but as appears that the case of the prosecution that they were patrolling. It was a dark night and surprisingly they have seen the three persons coming from a distance of 50 yards from a field. Not only this only the accused-petitioner is said to have been apprehended and a country made pistol is said to have been recovered from his possession along with two left cartridges. Even the names of the other two persons who are also said to have been accused are mentions what happened to them, there is no material on record. Only on the evidence of the police witnesses am not inclined to believe that any country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner and the learned courts below did not take into consideration the serious infirmity that no evidence was led that the police party had in fact left the police station or not. There is contradiction as to whether police party had left the police station at 6.30 p.m. 5. Consequently, I hereby allow this revision petition, set aside the judgment dated 19th July, 1988 of the learned Sessions Judge as well as dated 26th November, 1987 passed by the learned Magistrate, Dholpur. The conviction of the accused petitioner under section 3/25 of the Arms Act is set-aside. The sentence is also set aside. The accused petitioner is on bail and he need not to surrender the bail bonds. The bail bonds shall stand discharged.Revision Allowed. *******