Judgment V.S.Aggarwal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by Beant Singh (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sirsa dated 10.8.1987 and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa dated 16.7.1988. The learned Trial Court held the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine a Rs. 500/-. In default to payment of fine the petitioner was to undergo imprisonment for one month. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 27.9.1982 ASI Paup Singh along with other Police officials was present near the school of village Jagmalera. The petitioner was seen coming from the side of the village. He was intercepted on suspicion. On search one pistol of 3.3 bore was recovered from the dub of Pyjama of the petitioner. A sketch of the same was drawn and it was taken into possession vide a recovery memo Ex.PB. The site plan was drawn and ruqa was sent to the police station, on basis of which formal first information report copy of which is Ex.PC/1 has been recorded. Sanction of the District Magistrate, Sirsa was obtained and report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. 3. The learned trial Court had framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. On appraisal of the prosecution evidence, it was held that the official witnesses were reliable and, therefore, conviction could be based on their testimonies. The plea that the sanction obtained was not valid was also rejected. Accordingly, the above said judgment and the order of sentence were passed. The appeal as already mentioned above was dismissed. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Head Constable Satbir Singh PW-2 and ASI Paup Singh PW-3. The prosecution is alleged to have joined a public witness Amrik Singh but he was not examined. It has been pointed that he was not traceable. In that event, the Court was basically concerned with scrutinising the evidence of the official witnesses. 5. The prosecution is alleged to have joined a public witness Amrik Singh but he was not examined. It has been pointed that he was not traceable. In that event, the Court was basically concerned with scrutinising the evidence of the official witnesses. 5. Head Constable Satbir Singh had stated that they had started from the police station at 10.00 A.M. and reached the place of occurrence travelling by bus and then by tractor. On the contrary, the Investigating Officer had added that they had left the police station at 12.00 Noon. They travelled by bus and before reaching the place of incident; they had patrolled Damdama and Haripura villages. 6. One could describe it to be a discrepancy. But the question arises as to whether in the facts of the present case the evidence can be considered to be consistent to prove the guilt of the accused or not. Herein as is apparent from the nature of the statements, they are at poles apart. If what is stated by the Investigating Officer is believed that they left at 12.00 Noon, patrolled two villages and travelled by bus and it could not be as they stated that they reached the place of incident, as stated by supporting witness namely PW-2 Satbir Singh. This is co-related with the fact that there is no corroboration from an independent witness. In fact keeping in view the nature of the evidence and in the manner in which they stated that they reached the spot, makes the whole version of the prosecution to be not correct. It is difficult to believe the same. Consequently, it cannot be termed that prosecution has successfully proved that pistol was recovered from the person of the petitioner. 7. For these reasons, the impugned judgments and the order of sentence are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted awarding him the benefit of doubt.