Judgment B. R. ARORA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-1-94, passed by the Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Cases Court, Jodhpur, by which the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and under Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short, the N. D. P. S. Act) and one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. 00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act. ( 2 ) APPELLANT Rewant Singh was tried by the learned Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Cases, Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 8/17 and 18 of the N. D. P. S. Act and Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 5-5-92, at about 9. 40 a. m. , PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. , Police Station, Phalsund, received a secret information from some Mukhbir that an opium-smuggler with some opium has come to Swamiji Ki Dhani and from there he will proceed to some other place after taking tractor No. RSQ 5596 of Swamiji on hire. This information was recorded by the Station House Officer, Shiv Singh (PW 10) in the Roznamcha as is required under Section 42 (1) of the N. D. P. S. Act. He, also, informed this fact to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Pokaran his immediate officer superior. PW 9 Vikram Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police on receiving the information, also, accompanied Shiv Singh, S. H. O. , to Swamiji Ki Dhani along with PW 7 Nanak Ram H. C. , PW 1 Girdhari Singh LC. and other police personnels of Police Station, Phalsund, in a Gypsy jeep. This Gypsy Jeep was being driven by PW 2 Agar Singh, Driver. They reached Swamiji Ki Dhani, where they were informed that the accused, on a tractor had gone towards Heere Ki Dhani. and other police personnels of Police Station, Phalsund, in a Gypsy jeep. This Gypsy Jeep was being driven by PW 2 Agar Singh, Driver. They reached Swamiji Ki Dhani, where they were informed that the accused, on a tractor had gone towards Heere Ki Dhani. They followed the accused and five kilometers away of Heere Ki Dhani, they saw a tractor proceeding towards Heere Ki Dhani. On seeing the police party, the accused, who was sitting on the pillion seat of the tractor, jumped from the tractor from the back side and tried to run away, whereupon PW 1 Girdhari Singh and PW 7 Nanak Singh H. C. chased the accused and caught-hold of him after covering a distance of about thirty paces. The search of the accused was thereafter taken in the presence of PW 9 Mr. Vikram Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the other police personnels and PW 3 Khushalpuri the driver of the tractor, after giving the search of the members of the raiding party. On search, from one packet, which the accused was carrying, opium milk weighing 9. 900 kgs. was found in a polythene bag put inside the bag carried by the accused. Two samples of 30 grams each were taken and the remaining article was seized and sealed along with the samples. The accused was, thereafter, arrested and was brought to Police Station, Phalsund. The sample was, thereafter, sent for chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, through PW 6 Chain Singh Constable, who first took the sample to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer and after obtaining a forwarding letter therefrom, he took the sample to the aforesaid laboratory at Jaipur and deposited the same there. On chemical examination, the sample was found containing 3. 89% of morphine and was found to be the coagulated juice of opium poppy. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. PW 1 Girdhari Singh is the L. C. posted at Police Station, Phalsund, who accompanied PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. , PW 9 Mr. Vikram Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pokaran, and the other police personnels of the raiding party. They went to village Swamiji Ki Dhani, where they were informed that the accused had proceeded towards Heere Ki Dhani on a tractor. Vikram Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pokaran, and the other police personnels of the raiding party. They went to village Swamiji Ki Dhani, where they were informed that the accused had proceeded towards Heere Ki Dhani on a tractor. They followed him and about five kilometers of Heere Ki Dhani, they saw the accused on a tractor, who, on seeing the police party, tried to escape but this witness and PW 7 Nanak Ram H. C. chased him and caught hold of the accused. Thereafter the search of the accused was taken and from his possession, 9. 900 kgs. of coagulated juice of opium poppy was found, which was seized and sealed after taking two samples of 30 grams each and the samples were, also, sealed. The accused was arrested and brought to Police Station, Phalsund. Similar is the statement of PW 2 Agar Singh, Driver and PW 7 Nanak Ram, H. C. , who was, also, the Malkhana In-charge of the Police Station. PW 3 Khushalpuri was the Driver of the tractor, which was hired by the accused-appellant. His statement is to the effect that they were proceeding towards Heere Ki Dhani; after seeing the police party the accused tried to run away, who was chased by the police party and caught hold and from the bag carried by the accused, coagulated juice of opium poppy was recovered, which was weighing 9. 900 kgs. PW 4 Mausham Ali is the Armour posted at Police Lines, Jaisalmer, before whom PW 1 Girdhari Singh-Constable of Police Station, Phalsund-brought the pistol recovered from the accused in C. R. No. 19/1992 of Police Station, Phalsund. He examined this firearm. The country-made pistol contained an empty cartridge in it and the pistol was found serviceable. After examination, the report Ex. P. 3 was prepared by him and the pistol was re-sealed. PW 5 Sona Ram Khatik is the Motbir witness, who was called by the police party after the arrest of the accused, who weighed the article recovered from the accused. This witness has not supported the prosecution case during the trial and, therefore, he was declared hostile. P. 3 was prepared by him and the pistol was re-sealed. PW 5 Sona Ram Khatik is the Motbir witness, who was called by the police party after the arrest of the accused, who weighed the article recovered from the accused. This witness has not supported the prosecution case during the trial and, therefore, he was declared hostile. PW 6 Chain Singh is the Constable, who was posted at Police Station, Phalsund and who took the sample for F. S. L. examination from Police Station, Phalsund, first to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, gave the sample to PW 8 Hem Singh, posted in the Crime Section of the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, who got a forwarding letter prepared and handed over the forwarding letter and sample to PW 6 Chain Singh, who thereafter took the sample to the aforesaid Laboratory at Jaipur and deposited the same there. This witness has specifically stated that at the time when he took the sample from the Police Station, the seals on the sample were intact and the seals remained intact till the sample was deposited in the Laboratory. PW 7 Nanak Ram, H. C. , is the In-charge of the Malkhana of Police Station, Phalsund. He accompanied the raiding party, laid a trap, caughthold the accused and on search found 9. 900 kgs. of coagulated juice of opium poppy in the possession of the accused which was seized, two samples were taken from it which were, also, sealed along with the remaining article, arrested the accused, came to Police Station, Phalsund and the articles were deposited in the Malkhana by PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. On 21-5-92, he gave the sample to PW 6 Chain Singh for taking the same for F. S. L. examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. He has, also, stated that the seals on the samples remained intact through-out the period when they were deposited in the Malkhana till the sample was handedover to PW 6 Chain Singh for taking the same for F. S. L. examination to Jaipur. He has, also, stated that the seals on the samples remained intact through-out the period when they were deposited in the Malkhana till the sample was handedover to PW 6 Chain Singh for taking the same for F. S. L. examination to Jaipur. PW 8 Hem Singh was the Constable posted in the Crime Section of the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, before whom PW 6 Chain Singh produced the samples, he got a forwarding letter prepared and handedover the same along with the sample to PW 6 Chain Singh for taking the same to the aforesaid Laboratory. PW 9 Mr. Vikram Singh is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Pokaran, who had come for inspection to Police Station, Phalsund and to whom PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. , gave the information under S. 42 (2) of the N. D. P. S. Act regarding the secret information received by him from some Mukhbir that the Smuggler had come with opium. He also, accompanied the raiding party including PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. , and the other police personnels and in whose presence the accused was arrested and on search 9. 900 kgs. of coagulated juice of opium poppy was found in his possession. PW 10 Shiv Singh is the Station House Officer/in-charge, Police Station, Phalsund, who received the secret information from some Mukhbir and who, after making an entry to this effect in the Roznamcha, as is required under S. 42 (1) of the N. D. P. S. Act, informed the same to his immediate officer superior, viz. , PW 9 Mr. Vikram Singh, deputy Superintendent of Police, Pokaran; proceeded towards Swamiji Ki Dhani along with the members of the raiding party, where they were informed that the accused had proceeded towards Heere Ki Dhani. The police party, thereafter, proceeded towards Heere Ki Dhani and saw the accused going on a tractor. On seeing the police party, the accused tried to run away but he was chased by PW 1 Girdhari Singh and PW 7 Nanak Ram and was caught hold of. Thereafter on search, the accused was found carrying 9. 900 kgs. of coagulated juice of opium poppy, from which two samples weighing 30 grams each were taken and sealed. Thereafter the accused was arrested and brought to Police Station, Phalsund. Thereafter on search, the accused was found carrying 9. 900 kgs. of coagulated juice of opium poppy, from which two samples weighing 30 grams each were taken and sealed. Thereafter the accused was arrested and brought to Police Station, Phalsund. The seized and sealed articles were deposited in the Malkhana of the Police Station, from where the sample was sent for F. S. L. examination and on chemical examination, the sample was found to be that of coagulated juice of opium poppy. He made the further investigation and presented the challan. The accused-appellant was thereafter examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. He did not produce any witness in his defence. The learned Special Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as stated above. It is against this judgment convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant that the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 (2) and 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act and, therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the recovered goods were produced in the Court during the trial and not earlier, which vitiates the trial. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over : 1993 Cri LR (SC) 333 and 1992 Cr LR (Raj.) 181. It has, also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. , who received the secret information, laid a trap, seized the opium milk from the possession of the accused, arrested the accused, lodged the F. I. R. and, also, conducted the investigation, which is illegal and vitiates the trial. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence that the seals on the articles remained intact throughout, is missing in the present case. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that no independent witnesses were called at the time of the arrest of the accused and, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned lower Court, convicting and sentencing the appellant, deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that no independent witnesses were called at the time of the arrest of the accused and, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned lower Court, convicting and sentencing the appellant, deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below and submitted that neither there is any contravention of the provisions of Section 42 (2) and/or Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act nor are the other grounds, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, sustainable. ( 4 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) THE first contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the compliance of Section 42 (2) of the N. D. P. S. Act has not been made in this case. Section 42 (2) of the N. D. P. S. Act requires that where an officer takes down any information in writing under Sub-Section (1) of Section 42 or records the ground of his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate officer superior. There is no non-compliance of Sub-Section (2) of Section 42 of the N. D. P. S. Act and the compliance of this Sub-Section has been made by PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. After receiving the information from some secret source and recording the same in the Roznamcha, he informed PW 9 Mr. Vikram Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pokaran -- his immediate officer superior who had come there on inspection and after receiving this information, PW 9 Mr. Vikram Singh accompanied PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. and other police personnels of the raiding party. The requirement of the law is that the immediate officer superior should be informed regarding the information, which has been done by PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. , in the present case. There is, therefore, no non-compliance of Sub-Section (2) of Section 42 of the N. D. P. S. Act. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is therefore, devoid of any force. There is, therefore, no non-compliance of Sub-Section (2) of Section 42 of the N. D. P. S. Act. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is therefore, devoid of any force. ( 6 ) THE next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that there is a noncompliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act, which deals with the condition of search of a person and provides that before making the search the accused should be informed whether he wants to get himself searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer of any of the Departments mentioned in Section 42 or before a nearest Magistrate. Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act is applicable only in the cases where the search is not made by a Gazetted Officer and not in a case where the search itself has been made by the Gazetted Officer. This provision has been made considering the stringent punishment providing under the Act and provides a safeguard that the search of the person should be made in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. When the search has been made in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is a Gazetted Officer, therefore, the compliance of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act has been made in the present case. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of any force. ( 7 ) THE next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the samples and the opium seized were not produced in the Court, which vitiates the trial. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over : Valsala v. State of Kerala ( AIR 1994 SC 117 ). ( 7 ) THE next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the samples and the opium seized were not produced in the Court, which vitiates the trial. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over : Valsala v. State of Kerala ( AIR 1994 SC 117 ). In this case, i. e. , Valsala v. The State of Kerala, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the sample was sent for F. S. L. examination after a delay of more than three months and there was no evidence worth on record to suggest that the seized articles were kept in the Malkhana in the same sealed condition and, therefore, in those circumstances the Apex Court held that "there was no evidence whatsoever, at all, to show with whom the sealed articles were lying and assuming that it was in the custody of the Officer In-charge of the Police Station, who seized it, there is again no evidence to show whether it was seized and kept there. " The Supreme Court further opined that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is wholly insufficient to conclude that what was seized from the appellant was sent for chemical examination. The evidence produced by the prosecution was found to be insufficient regarding search, seizure and sending the samples and the investigation was found to be perfunctory and it is only in the circumstances that the Apex Court had acquitted the accused. The judgment, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable and is not applicable in the present case. In the present case, there is specific evidence on the point in the form of the evidence of PW 6 Chain Sukh, PW 7 Nanak Ram, PW 8 Hem Singh and PW 10 Shiv Singh that the accused was searched and the opium milk was recovered from him. The opium milk as well as the samples were seized and sealed and the aforesaid witnesses have stated that the sealed articles remained in the same sealed condition since the date of recovery till they were taken to the Laboratory for F. S. L. examination. The report of the F. S. L. clearly shows that the seals on the sample tallied with the specimen seal and the seals were intact. The report of the F. S. L. clearly shows that the seals on the sample tallied with the specimen seal and the seals were intact. The link evidence regarding the seals on the samples is, therefore, complete. Though the search and seizure in the present case is not illegal but even if there is some illegality even then the illegality in the search and seizure itself will not vitiate the evidence collected by the investigating agency. At the most, the consequence ensuing from the legal position is that the Court should be cautious in examining the evidence carefully regarding the search and seizure. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, on this point, is, therefore, devoid of any force. ( 8 ) THE next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the investigating officer and the person who arrested the accused and lodged the F. I. R. is the same, which vitiates the trial and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. I have gone through the record. After going through the record of the case, I am of the opinion that after the search, seizure, arrest and lodging of F. I. R. , the investigation was made by PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. In view of the latest judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (JT 1994 (2) JT (SC) 108), it is clear that the investigation can be conducted by the same person who has made the search, seizure, arrest and lodged the F. I. R. it has been held by the Supreme Court in : the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, (1994 Cri LJ 3702) that :-"when a police officer carrying on the investigation including search, seizure or arrest, empowered under the provisions of the Cr. P. C. , comes across a person being in possession of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substances then two aspects will arise. If he happens to be one of those empowered officers under the Act, also, then he must follow thereafter the provisions of the N. D. P. S. Act and continue the investigation as provided there under. P. C. , comes across a person being in possession of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substances then two aspects will arise. If he happens to be one of those empowered officers under the Act, also, then he must follow thereafter the provisions of the N. D. P. S. Act and continue the investigation as provided there under. If, on the other hand, he is not empowered, then the obvious thing he should do is that he must inform the empowered officer under the N. D. P. S. Act who should thereafter proceed from that stage in accordance with the provisions of the N. D. P. S. Act. "the position of law, which emerges from the judgment of Balbir Singhs case is that it is only the empowered officer who can conduct the investigation and if an empowered officer comes across a person being in possession of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance and had made the search, seizure and arrested the accused under the Act then he can proceed with the investigation. It is not necessary, as per the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court that it is only the other officer who should proceed with the investigation and the person and the officer who has made the search or seized the article or arrested the accused or lodged the report, becomes disentitled to carry on the further investigation. The officer who has seized the article, arrested the accused and lodged the report, can be said to be a complainant only in a technical sense in view of the Explanation appended to Sub-Section (d) of Section 2 of the Act, which defines the word complainant. An inclusive definition of investigation has been given in Sub-clause (b) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which investigation includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence, conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by the Magistrate in this behalf. As per the definition, it consists of : (i) proceeding to the spot; (ii) the arrest of the suspected offender; (iii) the collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence; (iv) the search of the place and seizure of the things; (v) ascertainment of the facts and circumstances and preparation of the site-plan etc. As per the definition, it consists of : (i) proceeding to the spot; (ii) the arrest of the suspected offender; (iii) the collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence; (iv) the search of the place and seizure of the things; (v) ascertainment of the facts and circumstances and preparation of the site-plan etc. ; (vi) recording the statements of various witnesses; and (vii) thereafter to form an opinion whether from the evidence collected by the investigating officer, any case to proceed with against the accused is made out. Thus, if after receiving the information from some secret source when the investigating officer proceeded towards the place to arrest the accused and to make the search and seizure and if found that some contravention of the provisions of the N. D. P. S. Act has been made then it is in the process of investigation. The Act does not envisage the investigation by two separate persons one, upto the stage of arrest of the accused, search and seizure and thereafter by the another officer. The investigating officer, who made the search, seized the article, arrested the accused and lodged the report, who was authorised under the N. D. P. S. Act to investigate, was, thus, competent to proceed with the investigation in view of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of : the State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh. There is no provision either in the N. D. P. S. Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which any illegality or irregularity in the investigation would render the trial illegal. In the absence of any such provision, any irregularity or illegality in the investigation, thus, cannot vitiate the trial or conviction. ( 9 ) THE next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the evidence that the articles remained sealed through out the period since the date of their seizure and sealing till they reached the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur for F. S. L. examination, is missing. This argument has no legs to stand-on because the prosecution, from the evidence placed on record, has proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt that the seals on the articles remained intact through out. This argument has no legs to stand-on because the prosecution, from the evidence placed on record, has proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt that the seals on the articles remained intact through out. PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. , who investigated the matter and seized the article, has specifically stated that he deposited the article as well as the samples in the Malkhana of Police Station, Phalsund by handing them over to the Malkhana Incharge, viz. , PW 7 Nanak Ram and at that time the articles were properly sealed and the seals on the article remained intact since they were seized and sealed till they were deposited in the Malkhana. PW 7 Nanak Ram, who was the Malkhana Incharge of Police Station, Phalsund, has, also, stated that the articles were deposited by PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. with him in the sealed condition and he gave the sample to PW 6 Chain Sukh Constable for taking the same to the Laboratory at Jaipur for F. S. L. examination and the seals on the articles remained intact from the date they were deposited till the sample was handedover to PW 6 Chain Sukh for F. S. L. examination. PW 6 Chain Sukh Constable has stated that he took the sample for F. S. L. examination to Jaipur from the Malkhana on 21-5-92; first took the sample to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, obtained the forwarding letter from PW 8 Hem Singh and thereafter deposited the sample in the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, for F. S. L. examination and during this period the seals on the sample remained intact. PW 8 Hem Singh was the Constable working in the Crime Section of the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer. He has stated that two samples were produced before him by PW 6 Chain Sukh; he got the forwarding letter prepared and handed over the forwarding letter and the sample to PW 6 Chain Sukh. He has, also, stated that the seals on the samples were intact. The F. S. L. report, also, shows that the seals on the sample were found intact. From the evidence of these witnesses, viz. He has, also, stated that the seals on the samples were intact. The F. S. L. report, also, shows that the seals on the sample were found intact. From the evidence of these witnesses, viz. , PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. , PW 7 Nanak Ram, PW 6 Chain Sukh and PW 8 Hem Singh, it has clearly been proved that the seals on the articles remained intact through out. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of any force. ( 10 ) THE next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that no independent witnesses were called by the Station House Officer before taking the search and arresting the accused. This contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, has no legs to stand on because the secret information was received by PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. , that a smuggler has come to Swamiji Ki Dhan and would be proceeding to other destination for selling the contraband opium and, therefore, he had no time to call some Motbir witness to accompany him. If he would have taken the time to call for the Motbir witnesses then there was every possibility that the accused might have escaped. Therefore, non-calling of the independent witnesses at the time of arrest of the accused, will not affect the case of the prosecution as no prejudice has been caused to the accused-appellant. The search or seizure in the absence of the independent witnesses may be required if it has prejudiced the case of the accused in any way. The appellant has failed to show any prejudice caused to him due to making the search, seizure or arrest in the absence of some independent or Motbir witnesses. Moreover, the search, seizure and arrest of the accused-appellant have been made in the presence of PW 3 Khushal Puri, who is an independent witness and who, in the examination-in-chief, has supported the prosecution case and, therefore, it cannot be said that the search, seizure or the arrest of the accused were not made in the presence of some Motbir witnesses. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, devoid of any force. The contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, devoid of any force. ( 11 ) THE next question, which requires consideration in the present case is : whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant under S. 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act are sustainable or not ? From the evidence of PW 1 Girdhari Singh, PW 2 Agar Singh Armour, PW 7 Nanak Ram and PW 10 Shiv Singh, S. H. O. , the recovery of the illicit 12-Bore Pistol along with the cartridges from the possession of the appellant stands proved and PW 4 Mausham Ali, who was the Armour in the Police Lines, Jaisalmer and who examined the recovered articles, found the pistol as 12-Bore country-made Pistol. The accused-appellant was not having any valid licence for this pistol and, therefore, the learned Special Judge was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act. ( 12 ) IN the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .