Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No, 91/97 whereby the judgment of the trial Court passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Begusarai in GR No. 2256/92, trial No. 39/97 has been confirmed. The trial Court convicted both the revision is to for the offence under Section 25(1-B) and 26 of the Arms Act and they were sentenced to undergo RI for six months each. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. It has been submitted by the revisionists lawyer that only two witnesses were examined out of which PW 2 was the IO who was not member of the police patrolling party and no seizure of any fire arm or ammunition was made in his presence. PW 1 was ASI who was member of the police Patrolling party. Seizure list witnesses were also members of the Patrolling party but they were not examined. The seized articles were not produced in the court inspite of the directions from the court and there is no satisfactory explanation for non-production of the seized articles. So evidence of PW 1 was the only evidence to support the alleged seizure. 3. In the instant case, the alleged seizure was perhaps by police patrolling party at odd hour of the night and there was no probability of the availability independent witnesses. But, however, the seizure list witnesses ought to have been examined in proof of the alleged seizure. Seizure list and the report of the ballistic expert were also brought on record. But in absence of the production of the seized materials, seizure list and the report of the ballistic expert were useless, therefore, the moot question was whether the evidence of PW 1 was reliable and the order of conviction could be based on the sole evidence. Normally, it is unsafe to rely on the sole evidence of police personnel without corroboration from the independent witnesses. Moreover, when the seized articles were not produced and that too without any satisfactory explanation, the evidence of PW 1 was itself not worth reliance. In such circumstances, I think the order of conviction recorded by two Courts is vitiated by law. 4. In the result, this revision is allowed and the order of conviction passed against the revisionists is set aside. Revisionists shall stand acquitted.