Judgment Braj Nandan Prasad Singh, J. 1. The appellant suffered conviction under Sec. 25(1) of the Arms Act, for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 years and was also sentenced to fine of Rs. 500.00 . He was convicted also under Sec. 25(1-B) and Sec. 26(2) of the Arms Act for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years and 10 years respectively and was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 on each of those two counts with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The facts which led to conviction of the appellant can be recapitulated with brevity. Mahendra Pratap Singh SI, PW 13. acting on a tip-off that the appellant and one Jai Prakash Sharma, involved in trade of manufacturing, shortening and making arms suitable by required adjustment for being effective for supply to criminals and selling them in market on higher price, on mis-representation, of these fire arms to be of foreign origin in company of other police officials, laid a trap in the house of the appellant on 24th June, 2000 when allegedly large number of fire arms and instruments for manufacturing arms, and cartridges were seized in presence of two independent witnesses. A police case had been registered and investigation followed, on completion of which the police laid charge-sheet and the appellant was eventually put on trial. 3. In the eventual trial that followed, State examined altogether 13 witnesses including Reporting Officer, Investigating Officer, other police officers. Home Guard jawans, chaukidar and also two seizure list witnesses. 4. The defence too examined two witnesses to counter accusations attributed to the appellant about seizure of any offending article from house of the appellant. The other defence is that even if seizure was accepted to be true, premises did not belong to the appellant. 5. The trial Court, however, on appreciation of evidences, rejecting the defence contention raised at Bar, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 6. Since findings recorded by Court below is sought to be assailed on two premises, which can be well appreciated without reproducing evidence which were taken into consideration by the Court below, I do not want to burden this judgment with narration of statement of witnesses. 6. Since findings recorded by Court below is sought to be assailed on two premises, which can be well appreciated without reproducing evidence which were taken into consideration by the Court below, I do not want to burden this judgment with narration of statement of witnesses. Suffice it to say that the seizure list witness though acknowledged their signatures on the seizure memo, turned volte face to the state denying about alleged seizure from premises of the appellant. Though Mahendra Pratap Singh, PW 13 while reiterating his earliest version, has sought the lend assurance to the prosecution accusation about seizure of incriminating object from premises of the appellant and for that there is evidence of other witnesses too who constituted raiding party, I may advert to the evidence of Narayan Singh, PW. 11, the Sergeant Major and also Mahendra Pratap Singh, PW 13, The Sergeant Major before whom incriminating articles were produced has acknowledge those articles were not brought before him. Mahendra Pratap Singh too has acknowledged that he has not sealed the seized articles, and in that view of the matter since bona-fide of accusations were open to question, the trial had vitiated on that count in support of this contention reliance can be placed upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in Jasbir Singh V/s. State of Punjab. 7. From evidence of witnesses, it would appear that the incriminating articles in question did not even bear distinctive mark and there is no evidence on record to show that the articles, which were produced in the Court, were non-else but those which were shown to have been seized by police during raid, and on these premises, I find that a serious infirmity has crept in the prosecution version which cannot be overlooked and hence findings recorded by Court below cannot be sustained in law. The findings recorded by Court below as such is, accordingly, set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is also discharged from liability of bail bond. Since appellant is in custody, he is also directed to be set. free forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 8. Appeal accordingly succeeds.