B. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal the judgment and dated 23. 7. 1979 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in St No. 434 of 1978 (State v. Barnam Singh and another), under sections 147, 148 and 307/149 IPC and section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution may briefly be stated as follows Subedar Singh Yadav (P. W. 1), who was, posted as Station Officer in P. S. Ekdil in August 1978, was on patrol duty on 26. 8. 1978. He was accompanied by S. 1. Raghubir Singh, S. 1. Malkhan Singh, Constables Batti Lal, Anup Pal Singh, Shiv Prakash and Ram Lakhan. The police n party had left the police station at 7. 00 P. M. At 11 about 9. 45 P. M. the police party was picketing near the bridge of Nahar Pachdaura. They were one the eastern bank of the Nahar. S. 0. Subedar Singh Yadav (P. W. 1) and his colleagues saw 5-6 miscreants coming towards them from die side of Lohia Pul. S. 0. Subedar Singh Yadav (P. W. 1) flashed his torch and confronted the miscreants after disclosing his identity. The miscreants then threatened to kill the members of the police party and some of them fired shots towards the police personnel. S. 0. Subedar Singh. Yadav and his colleagues that took position and returned the fire. When the fire was returned, the miscreants started running away. They were chased and police party succeeded in apprehending two of them 4 i. e. Barnam Singh and Asha Ram. The arrested persons gave out their names and were searched by S. O. Subedar Singh Yadav (P. W. 1 ). One S. B. B. L. Gun, one empty cartridge, four live cartridges were recovered from Barnam Singh. One county made pistol, one empty cartridge and two live cartridges were recovered from Asha Ram. The licence was demanded for the fire arms and the cartridges but the accused- respondents failed to produce them. The arrested persons had given the names of their colleagues as Surendra, Gurna alias Guru Narain, Ganga Singh and Darshan Singh Lodhi. The fire arms- and the cartridges were sealed in separate bundles under the recovery memo Ex ka. 2. The respondents were made Baparda and were brought to P. S. Ekdil along, with recovered pistol and cartridges. The arrested persons had given the names of their colleagues as Surendra, Gurna alias Guru Narain, Ganga Singh and Darshan Singh Lodhi. The fire arms- and the cartridges were sealed in separate bundles under the recovery memo Ex ka. 2. The respondents were made Baparda and were brought to P. S. Ekdil along, with recovered pistol and cartridges. At the police station a case was registered against the respondents under sections 147, 148 and 307/149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act. ( 3 ) ROUTINE investigation followed. SI Harihar Singh (P. W. 3) the Investigation Officer, after completing his investigation in the case and after obtaining sanction from the District Magistrate for launching a prosecution against the respondents under section 25 of the Arms Act, had submitted the charge sheet (Ex lea. 4 to lea. 6 ). ( 4 ) AT the trial the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In all the prosecution examined three witnesses i. e. S. O. Subedar Singh Yadav (P. W. 1), SI Malkhan Singh (P. W. 2) and SI Harihar Singh (P. W, 3) in the case. The accused did not lead any evidence in their defence. ( 5 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge did not accept he evidence of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused of the offences with which hey were charged. In addition learned Sessions judge also issued a notice under section 344 Cr. P. C. to S. 0. Subedar Singh (P. W. 1 ). ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the Judgment and order of the trial court the State has come in appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the State. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of S. O. Subedar Singh Yadav (P. W. 1) and SI Malkhan Singh (P. W. 2) as witnesses of fact. We have already detailed the version of S. O. Subedar Singh Yadav (P. W. 1) in the statement of the case and the same need not be repeated here. SI. Malkhan Singh has also corroborated the evidence of S. O. Subedar Singh (P. W. 1) regarding the arrest of the accused respondents and the subsequent search made by the S. O, Learned Sessions Judge has not placed reliance upon the evidence of these P. W s. and having gone through the records we agree with him. SI. Malkhan Singh has also corroborated the evidence of S. O. Subedar Singh (P. W. 1) regarding the arrest of the accused respondents and the subsequent search made by the S. O, Learned Sessions Judge has not placed reliance upon the evidence of these P. W s. and having gone through the records we agree with him. ( 7 ) IT is significant to note that no effort was made by the S. O. Subedar Singh Yadav (P. W. 1), to call public witnesses before the search of the accused was taken. He has admitted that there was a village nearby the scene of occurrence and even then he did not call any person of that village before the accused were searched. It is no doubt, true that the evidence of the witnesses coming from the police force cannot be discarded for the simple reason that they belong to the police force but when an accused is to be searched and the arresting officer has time in which he can call public witnesses, it is expected that he would do so. This practice is generally followed so that the accused may not level the charge that the arresting officer has planted the recovered illicit arms and cartridges from him. No explanation is forth coming in the evidence of S. O. , Subedar Singh (P. W. 1) as to why no effort was made by him to call witnesses from the nearby village. Further more it was a dark night and on the own admission of S. O. , Subedar Singh Yadav (P. W. 1) it was not possible to see beyond two or four paces as it was rainy season, even then both these witnesses of fact have claimed to have seen the miscreants when they were at a distance of 1516 paces. The above statement is obviously false. Further more the case of the prosecution witnesses is that there was an exchange of fire between the police personnel and the miscreants. A number of shots were fired and if these two witnesses are to be believed the distance between the two firing parties was only a few paces. It is really surprising that neither any member of the police force for any of the miscreants sustained any gun shot wound. A number of shots were fired and if these two witnesses are to be believed the distance between the two firing parties was only a few paces. It is really surprising that neither any member of the police force for any of the miscreants sustained any gun shot wound. Another circumstances to note in this case is that the gun in question was said to be the stolen property. Yet for reasons best known to the prosecuting agency the alleged owner of the gun in question was not examined in the case. Learned Sessions Judge also referred to the improvements in the evidence of these witnesses and we agree with him that these improvements have also cast doubt about the evidentiary value of the testimony of these two witnesses. ( 8 ) UNDER the circumstance we find no force in this appeal. We may also point out that the trial had taken Place in the year 1979 and no useful purpose would be served if the notice issued to S. O. , Subedar Singh Yadav is given effect to at this stage. ( 9 ) THE appeal is hereby dismissed. However, the notice issued to Subedar Singh Yadav (P. W. 1) under section 344 Cr. P. C. is hereby discharged. Appeal dismissed. .