ORDER 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.8.96 passed by shri M.L Tiwari, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar, Guna. It has arisen out of the following facts. 2. The prosecution claimed that the applicant was found in possession of a sword measuring 3 Balist 10 Angul on 1.2.91 of which he had no licence, at the time of his arrest in the Haar of village Raipura. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence on record held the accused guilty of the offence punishable u/s 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and convicted and sentenced him under that section to a term of one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-. An appeal was preferred against that order which was rejected by the learned appellate Court. Hence this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the petitioner case the petitioner was charged and tried u/s 25 (a) of the Arms Act. It was mentioned in the charge that he was found in possession of a sword measuring 3 Balist 10 Angul and 2 Angul in width at the Haar of village Raipura and the offence shown was u/s 25 (a) of the Arms Act The contention of the learned counsel is that there is no such offence provided under section 25 (a) of the Arms Act. The fact is that a sharp edged weapon has been forbidden and its possession without a licence is an offence in view of the notification No. 6312-6552-II-B (i) dated 22.11.74. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Arms Act. The learned counsel urged that this notification was not men,tioned in the charge nor it was specified as to what offence was actually committed by the petitioner. It was necessary to have mentioned the notification number in the charge. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon 1973 Cr.LJ. 1708 (State of U.P. v. Munna) a decision of the Allahabad High Court. He further contended that in the present case the alleged sword was not at all prodl1ced at the trial Had it been produced it could have been shown that it was not prohibited measurement. In absence of the production of the sword in question the finding that the petitioner was guilty of the offence could not be maintained. He further contended that in the present case the alleged sword was not at all prodl1ced at the trial Had it been produced it could have been shown that it was not prohibited measurement. In absence of the production of the sword in question the finding that the petitioner was guilty of the offence could not be maintained. He also urged that the person who seized the arm was himself the Investigating officer. The Apex Court in 1995 AIR SC 2339 (Meghasingh v. State. of Haryana) observed that the officer who had arrested and recovered the articles should not have provided with the investigation of the case and as such investigation was also improper. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that in view of the provisions of section 215 Cr. P.C. an error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge cannot be regarded as material unless the accused was misled by such error or omission and it has occasioned failure of justice. He, therefore, contended that the accused applicant knew fully well for which he was being tried and as such mention of wrong. section did not vitiate. the trial. As far as the argument relating to non-production of the sword at the trial, the learned Counsel found himself in difficulty. He could not say that the sword was produced. As far as the argument relating to investigating is concerned, it is a fact that who is alleged to have recovered the article was the investigating officer. 4. I have considered the contentions raised before me. First of all I take the contention regarding charge, A perusal of the charge shows that the learned Court below appears to have mentioned in his own hind the charge U/S 25 (a) Arms Act. It we peruse the Arms Act there is no such section 25 (a), rather, the section is "25 (1) (a) or 25 (1-A)". Section 15 (1) (a) relates to manufacture, sale, transfer, convert, repairs etc. of any arm or ammunition in contravention of section 5 whereas Sub-section (1-A) relates to possession or carrying of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of S. 7. Thus, both of these provisions do not relate to sword which is alloged to have been found in possession of the petitioner. of any arm or ammunition in contravention of section 5 whereas Sub-section (1-A) relates to possession or carrying of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of S. 7. Thus, both of these provisions do not relate to sword which is alloged to have been found in possession of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that under section 25 (1-B) (b) which makes a provision for acquisition or possession or carrying in any place specified by notification u/s 4 any arms of such class or description as had been specified in that notification in contravention of that section. He referred to the aforesaid notification and pointed out that the aforesaid notification prohibiting the acquisition, possession and carrying of sharp edged weapon with a blade more than 6" long 2 inches wide and spring actuated knives with a blade of any size in public places. Thus, it is clear that the charge was not properly framed. The learned Magistrate does not appear to have any knowledge about the offence with respect of which he had framed the charge and the charge was framed mechanically. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was necessary in such cases that the notification under which prohibition with respect to certain arms was made should have been mentioned in the charge itself in order to acquaint the accused with the offence. However, it may be mentioned that in view of S. 215 Cr.P.C. unless it is shown that by any error or omission the offence is by virtue of any notification made under any law the notification must be mentioned in the charge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has not been able to show that any prejudice on account of defective charge had occurred to the accused. This question too was never raised earlier in trial. In this view for the matter, the defect in the charge cannot be said to be fatal. 5. Now I come to the second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The article seized was not produced before the Court. I find substance in this argument. This question too was never raised earlier in trial. In this view for the matter, the defect in the charge cannot be said to be fatal. 5. Now I come to the second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The article seized was not produced before the Court. I find substance in this argument. In order to bring home the guilt punishable under the afore Said notification it was the duty of the prosecution to have produced the• article itself and to have shown that it was a sharp edged weapon with a blade more than the prescribed size, i.e. 6 inches long 2 inches wide. This could have only been done by the production of the arm itself. The oral statement of witnesses cannot to said to be sufficient. As the article was not produced, I am of the opinion that it was fatal for the prosecution. The prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt by producing the best evidence. It was, therefore, the duty of the prosecution to have produched the arm. This aspect does not apper to have been taken seriously by the Courts below. In the absence of the' alleged sword the petitioner could not have been convicted because it cannot be said that the article exceeded the prohibited measurement. It could not be established beyond all reasonable doubt. In the case, I may also mention, that investigation was made by the person who is alleged to have seized the article. In the latest pronouncement by the Apex Court in the case of Meg ha Singh (supra) where the head constable who arrested the accused and recovered pistol and cartridges had carried out the investigation, the Apex Court observed that he should not have provided with the investigation of the case. The same position is here. Taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the opinion that the conviction cannot be maintained. The revision petition must, therefore, succeed. It is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. Fine if paid shall be refunded.