Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau vide his judgment dated 4th May, 1989 in Cr. Appeal No. 5/88 through which conviction and sentence of this petitioner to undergo R.I. for eight months under Sec. 25(a) of the Arms Act was confirmed and maintained. 2. The fact in short giving rise to this revision is that the informant Ram Naresh Singh a forest guard was on patrolling duty in Sindhorwa forest on 3-7 -1982 at about 9 a.m. and while he was doing patrolling work he met on the way one Ramakant Karan also an employee of the forest department and both of them proceeded towards Sindhorwa forest. It has been alleged that at about 9 a.m. they had seen some persons doing Hanka in the forest and had seen the petitioner Alam Khan sitting on a place erected for shooting and he was armed with a country made gun. So the informant apprehend him and snatched the gun but the petitioner managed to escape away. After that the seized gun was taken to Barwadih P.S. and a written report was submitted which was forwarded by the forester concerned and this case under Sec. 25(a) of the Arms Act was instituted as against the petitioner. 3. It is the defence version that the informant, forest guard was-annoyed with this petitioner for the reason that one Lakhan Bhuinya instituted a criminal case bearing G.R No. 110/82 as against the informant with an allegation that he kidnapped the wife of Lakhan and in that case the petitioner was a witness on behalf of Lakhan Bhuinya and for this annoyance a false case was instituted. 4. Initially the case tried by Shri A.D. Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, Lathar who found the petitioner guilty under Sec. 25(a) of the Arms Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 8 months and against that order appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 588 was preferred that too was dismissed by the 1st Add!. Sessions Judge, Palamu and conviction and sentence of the appellant as awarded by the trial Court was duly confirmed. Being aggrieved by this judgment of the appellate court this revision has been preferred. 5. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner by his Sr. Appeal No. 588 was preferred that too was dismissed by the 1st Add!. Sessions Judge, Palamu and conviction and sentence of the appellant as awarded by the trial Court was duly confirmed. Being aggrieved by this judgment of the appellate court this revision has been preferred. 5. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner by his Sr. learned counsel that the appellate Court and even the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and due to wrong appreciation and the examination of the case from a wrong angle apparently a perverse finding has been recorded that the petitioner is guilty under Sec. 25(a) of the Arms Act. 6. In the trial Court as many as five witnesses were examined including the Investigating Officer, PW 1 is Mohan Yadav, a witness on the point of seizure of the country made gun and he is also the local Mukhiya of the village but this witness has admitted in his cross-examination that Lakhan Bhuinya earlier instituted a criminal case as against the informant of this case as he kidnapped his wife and the petitioner was instrumental to institution of the case and there was previous enmity and so the informant instituted a false case out of annoyance. The evidence of this witness also finds supports from the documentary evidence i.e. Exts. C and D which indicate that Lakhan Bhuinya instituted a case as against the informant in March, 1982 regarding kidnapping of his wife in which the petitioner is also a witness. So prior enmity between the petitioner and the informant of this case is well proved but surprisingly the appellant court or even the trial court has not appreciated the point of enmity for institution of a false case. Similarly PW 2 Rama Kant Karan who is the most important witness and also an employee of the forest department who was admittedly present alongwith the informant at the time of search and seizure, had not at all supported the prosecution case that the petitioner was apprehended along with a country made gun. In that view of the matter it was thoroughly unsafe on the part of the court below to rely upon the testimony of the solitary witness Ram Naresh Sinha who is admittedly hostile to the petitioner from before due to institution of a criminal case against him prior to the occurrence. In that view of the matter it was thoroughly unsafe on the part of the court below to rely upon the testimony of the solitary witness Ram Naresh Sinha who is admittedly hostile to the petitioner from before due to institution of a criminal case against him prior to the occurrence. So both the courts below had not properly appreciated the evidence on the record and arrived at a wrong conclusion so far the recovery of the country made gun from the possession of the petitioner is concerned. 7. Even assuming it for the sake of argument that the petitioner was found in possession of a country made gun as claimed by the informant on 3-7-1982 but admittedly from the evidence of PW 5 the Investigating Officer of this case that the seized gun is Ext. 1 in this case and this witness has admitted in cross-examination that the seized gun alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner was defective and the expert also examined the same and found to be ineffective. So considering this aspect it can be said that the seized gun in question was not an effective firearm and it cannot be used as a fire-arm at the time of recovery from the possession of the petitioner. In that circumstance conviction of the petitioner under Sec. 25(a) of the Arms Act is apparently bad and illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. So on careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on the record I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to be allowed and as such this revision is hereby allowed and the order of conviction and sentence under Sec. 25(a) of the Arms Act as recorded by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Palamau in Cr. Appeal No. 5/88 is hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and discharged from the liability of his bail bond.