JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner was tried for offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act by learned Judicial Magistrate No 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur with the charge that on 2nd Oct., 1986 at 7.00 p.m. at Sangam Circle, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur, he was checked by an A.S.I on patrolling duty and from his possession a knife was recovered, which was 29 cms. in length having the sharp edge of 13 cms. Prosecutions case was that Surajmal (P.W.3), ASI, Police Station Kotwali immediately arrested him at 7.00 p.m., made a seizure memo at 7.15 pm. and thereafter, lodged an FIR at 7.30 p.m. The seizure is alleged to have been in presence of two motbirs viz., Bhajan Lal (P.W.2) and Ganesh Narain, whose signatures are appended on Ex.P.3. Surajmal (P.W.3) himself completed the investigation and submitted a charge-sheet. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution Jai Narain Singh (P.W. 1) is a Constable, who accompanied the A.S.I. on patrolling duty. Bhajan Lal (P.W.2) is one of the Motbirs who has been declared hostile and P.W. 3 is Surajmal, ASI, himself. 2. Learned trial Court relied upon the statement of Surajmal, corroborated by the recovery of knife and the statement of Jai Narain Singh and convicted the petitioner for offence under Sec 4/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months' simple imprisonment. 3. On an appeal by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to four months simple imprisonment and maintained the fine. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this revision petition has been filed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Normally, this Court is slow in interfering within the revisions more so when there is a concurrent finding of fact, yet there are cases which are exceptions to this general law and this case falls within the latter category. 6. Surajmal (p.w. 3) was on patrolling duty on the night of 2nd Oct. 1986 vide Rojnamcha, Ex. P. 5 having left the police station at 5.55 p.m. according to memo of arrest Ex. 6. Surajmal (p.w. 3) was on patrolling duty on the night of 2nd Oct. 1986 vide Rojnamcha, Ex. P. 5 having left the police station at 5.55 p.m. according to memo of arrest Ex. P. 1, arrested the accused at 7.00 p.m. and while preparing the arrest memo, he called both the motbirs i.e., Bhajan Lal (p.w. 2) and Ganesh Narain. He thereafter prepared Ex. P. 3, which shows the time as 7.15 pm. It is thereafter that a written FIR was lodged by him at 7.30 p.m as shown in general diary at No. 143. In this FIR, he has mentioned the fact of apprehending the accused at 6.45 p.m. Thereafter, arresting and making seizure of the knife. It is thereupon that the SHO, Police Station Kotwali took down the FIR. Statements of the witnesses have been recorded under Sec 161 Cr.P.C. by Surajmal himself and thereafter the charge-sheet was submitted. Thus, this is a case where the author of the FIR himself has become Investigating Officer and investigated the entire case. The only independent eye witness Bhajan Lal (p w. 2) has been declared hostile and left alone is the statement of Jai Narain Singh to corroborate Surajmal. Both of them admittedly accompanied each other vide Rojnamcha Ex. P. 5 at the time of the arrest & were obviously interested in showing the success of their case by which the alleged apprehension of Ahmad, petitioner, was done. In order to find out the truthfulness of the statement of the witness, a very cautious approach is required as the very foundation on which the investigation has started is highly improper, as stated above, complainant being the Investigating Officer in the case. The fakeness of the investigation is writ large from the fact that though the FIR shows its recording at 7.30 p.m. yet the documents, the reference of which has been made in the FIR and which shows time prior to recording of the FIR and yet bears the number of the FIR. Obviously, the two documents have been prepared subsequent to the fact of lodging the report and that belies the statement of the ASI. A very look at the entire investigation file from written FIR to the recording of the statement of the witnesses under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. indicates that they are all in one hand writing and one pen written at one stage. A very look at the entire investigation file from written FIR to the recording of the statement of the witnesses under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. indicates that they are all in one hand writing and one pen written at one stage. Therefore, the story which the Investigating Officer/complainant wants the court to believe has to be taken with suspicion, the prosecution story becomes doubtful. Thus, on either count i.e. on fairness of the investigation as well as on factual foundation, the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond all manners of reasonable doubt. I am fortified in my view by a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court report in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1976 SC 985 ) wherein the court almost in identical situation held as under:- "Now, ordinarily this Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact reached by the trial Court and the High Court on an appreciation of the evidence. But this is one of those rare and exceptional cases where we find that several important circumstances have not been taken into account by the trial Court and the High Court and that has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice calling for interference from the Court. We may first refer to a rather disturbing feature of this case. It is indeed such an unusual feature that it is quite surprising that it should have escaped the notice of the trial Court and the High Court. Head Constable Ram Singh was the person to whom he offer of bribe was alleged to have been made by the appellant and he was the informant or complainant who lodged the first information Report for taking action against the appellant. It is difficult to understand how in these circumstances Head Constable Ram Singh could undertake investigation?................This is an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case." 7. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in accepting the revision petition. 8. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this revision petition is allowed. Judgments of the trial Court as well as appellate Court are set aside, and consequently the conviction and sentence of the accused. He is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail and need not surrender his bail bonds. *******