JUDGMENT A.L. Vaidhya, J: The three accused, namely, Imtiaz Ahmad, Ishtiaz Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad were tried for the charges framed against them under Sections 467,468,473 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Accused Ishtiaz Ahmad died during the pendency of the present appeal. 2. Prosecution case, as put up, has been that on 18.9.1982, Shri Jaswir Singh, Inspector of Police, Nahan, got a secret information that accused Imtiaz Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad were dealing in the sale of weapons and explosives unauthorisedly and without licence. These three accused persons were the partners of a firm named M/S Nazir Ahmad and Ishtiaz Ahmad and in the year 1979, they were alleged to have forged arms licence. According to prosecution, the licence bearing No. 3336-N/74 which had been issued in the name of the accused persons for possessing one N.P. 22 Bore Rifle was alleged to have been forged by adding the description of 32 Bore Revolver bearing No. 32491 and also by affixing the seal of the District Magistrate, Sirmaur with intent to make other licence that the 32 Bore Revolver was having a genuine licence and the same was a genuine arm. The accused were also alleged to have then made an endorsement regarding the sale of this 32 Bore Revolver on the licence of Harminder Singh, PW, of Patiala at Nahan. Accused were also alleged to have committed forgery by issuing receipt to M/S Himalayan Arms, Gandhi Road, Dehradun, with respect to unauthorised arm pertaining to 32 Bore Revolver bearing No. 32491 and it was done with the intention that it would be used for the purpose of cheating those individuals and concerns respectively. Further case, as put up, has been that the accused persons prepared a seal of the District Magistrate, Sirmaur, with the intention that the same shall be used for the purpose of committing forgery, that is, to forget licence No. 32491. On the personal search of the house of the accused persons, 16 Bore double barrel gun was recovered without having any licence. The 32 bore revolver alleged to have sold by the accused was also in their possession, without there being any licence. 3. The trial Magistrate acquitted the accused persons after recording the evidence in this particular behalf. 4. The aforesaid acquittal has been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds. 5. The 32 bore revolver alleged to have sold by the accused was also in their possession, without there being any licence. 3. The trial Magistrate acquitted the accused persons after recording the evidence in this particular behalf. 4. The aforesaid acquittal has been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been scrutinised. 6. In a case of present nature, ordinarily this Court will not interfere with the acquittal order and the interfere with the acquittal order and the interference could be there only in case the trial Magistrate acted erroneously and illegally in appreciating the evidence in a manner not warranted by law. 7. Insofar as the forgery alleged to have been committed by the accused persons pertaining to the licence issued in their name bearing No. 3336-N/74 is concerned, the learned Additional Advocate General, has not argued the matter seriously. Rightly so, on the basis of the circumstances brought on record, this aspect has not at all been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the licence, referred to above, issued in the name of the accused in the year 1974 has not been brought on record. It was in this licence that the alleged forgery was committed. In the absence of the original document being placed before the Court during the trial, the alleged factum of forgery cannot be said to have been established at all. Learned Additional Advocate General, in this particular behalf, has drawn our attention to the statement of PW-6 who happened to be posted as Miscellaneous Clerk in the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate in September 1982, who brought the register pertaining to the arms and ammunition licence. He has placed on record Ex. PW-6/A, the certified copy of that register wherein licence No. 3336-N/74 has been entered pertaining to some rifle only and that too, was in the name of Imtiaz Ahmad. Form this document, it is being argued that only licence issued against the accused persons was pertaining to posses a rifle and not 32 bore revolver. We think that such an inference is not available, especially when, at first instance, according to PW-6, this licence for possessing rifle had been issued in the name of Imtiaz Ahmad alone and not in the name of all the accused persons who were alleged to be partners of a firm. We think that such an inference is not available, especially when, at first instance, according to PW-6, this licence for possessing rifle had been issued in the name of Imtiaz Ahmad alone and not in the name of all the accused persons who were alleged to be partners of a firm. Secondly, this witness nowhere stated that after going through the record, he could make a statement that no other licence, except the one stated by him, had been issued in the name of the accused persons. In this view of the matter, the version given by this witness will not help the prosecution at all. On the basis of the same reasons, the accused have not been legally connected beyond all reasonable doubt with the commission of the alleged forgery in the licence of Shri Harminder Singh for the alleged sale of revolver in his favour, especially when, as pointed out above, the original licence ensued in the name of the accused has not been placed on record. 8. It has been the prosecution case that the accused persons were using some stamp prepared by them in the name of District Magistrate for making use in forging the licences. It has also been the prosecution case that the stamp alongwith 16 bore double barrel gun were recovered in consequence of a house search of the accused persons, for which they were not holding any licence. 9. In order to prove this fact, the prosecution examined PW-1 Ramjan and PW-2 Manohar Singh who were alleged to have accompanied the police while the search of the house was conducted by the investigating officer. Both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case at all. They have stated that a constable brought three stamps and one double barrel gun from inside the house of the accused at the relevant time and date. It has also come in evidence that the house which was searched by the police during investigation was possessed by other persons also. Moreover, m has been pointed out by the trial Magistrate, the provisions of Section 100 Cr. P.C. for effecting the search were not complied with In this background, the alleged recovery cannot be legally connected with the conscious possession of the accused persons. Moreover, m has been pointed out by the trial Magistrate, the provisions of Section 100 Cr. P.C. for effecting the search were not complied with In this background, the alleged recovery cannot be legally connected with the conscious possession of the accused persons. Moreover, the trial Magistrate before whom the alleged recovered articles were produced, had an occasion to inspect the same and in this behalf, the observations of the trial Magistrate regarding the 16 bore double barrel piece of gun alleged to have been recovered from the house of the accused arc very much relevant. It has been noted by the learned Magistrate that in this case, there was no material on record to hold that Ex. P-2 barrel can be called an arm as defined in the Arms Act. It has further been observed by the learned Magistrate that it has come on record that the barrel piece was of obsolete bore and could not be used without affixing its other parts and it has also come on record that if fire was made through this barrel, it would burst because the connecting rod was in broken condition. Anyway, the fact remains that according to trial Magistrate, the arm as described was not actually the same when inspected and produced before the Court. Otherwise also, as detailed above, the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused persons over this alleged arm Ex. P-2 coupled with those stamps, has not been legally connected to the accused persons. The inferences drawn by the trial Magistrate, in this behalf, do not require any interference. 10. It has been the prosecution case that revolver Ex. P-l was owned by PW-9 Shri Bajrang Bali. This witness stated that revolver Ex. P-l was purchased by him from Indian Arms Corporation, Lucknow for Rs6,880/- on 1.11.1979. He had given this revolver for repair with Indian Arms Corporation on 6.5.1983. He could not tell from whom that Corporation had purchased this revolver. 11. PW-5 is the Manager, Indian Arms Corporation, Lucknow. He stated that on 1.10.1979, he purchased revolver No. 32491 Bycolt 32 bore from Shri Harmindcr Singh and the entry of this sale was made by him on his stock register, the attested copy of which were placed on record. He also stated that Ex. P-l had been recorded in the licence of Harmindcr Singh. He stated that on 1.10.1979, he purchased revolver No. 32491 Bycolt 32 bore from Shri Harmindcr Singh and the entry of this sale was made by him on his stock register, the attested copy of which were placed on record. He also stated that Ex. P-l had been recorded in the licence of Harmindcr Singh. According to this witness, on that very day, he sold this revolver in favour of Shri Bajrang Bali and the entry of the register, in this behalf, was Ex. PX. This witness further added that he produced this Ex. P-l to the police and the entry regarding the same had been made by him in the repair register. The certified copy of the same was Ex. PX/2. He also produced the sale voucher pertaining to this revolver. 12. During the trial, Harminder Singh was examined as PW-4, who stated that he had asked Kulwant Singh PW-3 that in the name of his licence, he should purchase a revolver for him. He also disclosed that Tariok Singh, on 15.8.1979, purchased the revolver from Nahan. According to him, he sold this revolver in favour of Indian Arms Corporation, Lucknow. This witness also produced his licence to the police and he identified the revolver sold by him to Lucknow dealer 13. PW-3 is Kulwant Singh, who stated that the revolver was purchased by him on the licence of Harmmder Singh. It was so done in 1979 According to him, he purchased it at Nahan. The witness has been thoroughly cross-examined and his statement regarding the purchase of the revolver at Nahan has been rendered doubtful. The trial Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove that Kulwant Singh ever visited Nalian and purchased revolver from Imtiaz at Nahan. 14. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts proved during the trial, the charges against the accused persons have not been legally established beyond all reasonable doubt. The factum of forgery and the factum of recovery of some arm and other incriminating articles from the conscious possession of the accused persons have not been connected with the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and in this behalf, the view taken by the trial Magistrate, on the basis of the evidence recorded during the trial, was also available and on that ground, the acquittal order docs not require any interference by this Court. 15. 15. However, it may be pointed out that the trial Magistrate fell into an error in coming to the conclusion that the sanction accorded by the District Magistrate Ex. PX 1 on record was not a valid sanction, observing that it had been given in a mechanical manner by the District Magistrate, without applying his mind. The trial Magistrate has referred to the statement of PW-18 Roshan Lal in this behalf and has come to the conclusion, as referred to above. We arc of the view that the learned Magistrates observations, in this behalf, arc not only against the proved facts, but otherwise un-sustainable and un-warranted. The sanction granted by the District Magistrate on record is Ex.PX-1. If one goes through the contents of this document, it would be crystal clear that the District Magistrate granted the sanction after going through the entire record and analysing the same in a legal manner and after satisfying himself. Simply because the clerk stated that the draft as put up before the District Magisrate was signed by him will not make the sanction illegal, especially when the District Magistrate, as reflected from the documents itself, after applying his mind and after satisfying himself while appreciating the entire record, accorded the sanction. The sanction, on the basis of the record placed before the District Magistrate, was a valid one. The District Magistrate was not required to investigate the veracity of those documents produced before him. It is an altogether separate matter in case the prosecution failed to prove its case by leading independent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. 16. Thus, in view of the fore-going reasons, the present appeal fails and being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. The acquittal order passed by the trial Magistrate is maintained. Cr. M.P. (M)No.582 of l993. 17. Shri Bajrangbali (PW-6) filed the present petition for the return of the revolver under reference which is .32 Bore Colt No. 32491. He has claimed to be the owner of this revolver having a valid licence, as he had purchased the same from M/S Indian Arms Corporation, an arms dealer, from Lucknow. This Court, vide order dated 29.6.1993, while disposing of this petition, passed the following order: "The petitioner claims to be the owner of revolver in question (.32 Bore Colt No. 32491). This Court, vide order dated 29.6.1993, while disposing of this petition, passed the following order: "The petitioner claims to be the owner of revolver in question (.32 Bore Colt No. 32491). He claims to have purchased the same from M/S Indian Arms Corporation, an arms dealer firm at Lucknow. The said Arms Corporation, as per entry in their stock register dated 1.10.1979, appears to have purchased the same from one Harmindcr Singh who is also alleged to have a valid licence for the above said revolver Later on in a criminal case registered vide FIR No. 96 of 1982. Re. State of HP Vs. Imtiaz Ahmad and two others, relating to the commission of the offence under Sections 467,468,473 and 25/54/59 of the Indian Arms Act, the revolver in question was taken into possession by the police as a case property. In that case three accused were tried for the commission of the aforesaid offences but ultimately acquitted vide judgment dated April 28, 1989, passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur Distt. Nahan. However, the revolver in question case property Ex. P-l along-with other weapons were ordered to be confiscated to th« State of Him achal Pradesh. At this stage, it would be material to note that the said judgment dated April 28,1989, has been assailed by the State of Him achal Pradesh in an appeal pending final decision before this Court. (Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 89 Re: State Vs. Imtiaz Ahmad and two other). The petitioner appeared as PW-9 and supported his claim to the revolver being the owner and possessor thereof. The learned Court below has passed the order of confiscation of the case property without hearing the claimant as is apparent from the operative part of the judgment. The facts in that case did disclose that the petitioner claimed the ownership of the property in question. He (petitioner) in the capacity of a witness could not have apprehended that the weapon would be ordered to be confiscated in his absence or without affording him an opportunity of being heard. To that extent the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are liable to be accepted in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court below and even otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The petition is accordingly allowed. To that extent the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are liable to be accepted in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court below and even otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The petition is accordingly allowed. In order to achieve the end, it is ordered that a copy of this order be annexed with the Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 1989 (Re: State of H.P. Vs. Imtiaz Ahmad and two others). Further it is clarified that the petitioner shall have the right to be heard with respect to a limited extent with regard to the release or otherwise in relation to the case propety (revolver Ex. P-l) in that criminal case. S/Sh. A.K. Goel and M.S. Chandel would file a Memo of appearance for the said purpose so that their names appear in the cause list. In the light of the above, the petition stands disposed of." 18. In the background of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for Shri Bajrangbali was heard. As has been pointed out earlier, this Bajrangbaii was owner of this revolver. Accordingly, it would be in the interests of justice to return this revolver in favour of Bajrangbali, if he produces a renewed licence up to date, for possessing this arm. This petition stands disposed of accordingly.