JUDGMENT S.K. Kar, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 02.01.2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri, in Session Case No. 4/2002 under Section 25(1A), Arms Act, 1959, this appeal has been preferred. 2. There is a confusion, learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit, about the Sections of law involved as at different stage, different Section/Sub-section has been mentioned. I also find in the FIR, it has been noted Sections 387/34, IPC and 25(1)(a)/27, Arms Act. In the charge-sheet, it has been mentioned as Sections 387/34,25(1)(a)/27, Arms Act. In formal charge head, Sections mentioned are under Sections 387, 25(1A) and 27(2) of the Arms Act. In the letter according sanction of prosecution, Sections mentioned are 25(i)(a)/27, Arms Act. 3. The Appellant was sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further R.I. for three months. 4. The brief facts leading to the prosecution are as follows: It is alleged that the Appellant/accused along with some other persons came to the house of the informant and claiming themselves to be members of ULFA organisation demanded a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from the informant within 7 days. He was intimidated by pointing a pistol that if the money is not paid, he will have to face the consequence and the informant told them that he had no money to pay and took some time and fled away from his house to avoid the demand. That as arranged the accused/Appellant told him that they will come on 23.9.2001 to collect the money and if the money is not paid, he will-be shot to death. Informant verbally intimated the Chapar Police Station and Police came and hid themselves. At 12 O'clock of 23.09.01, the accused came on a bi-cycles. Asking the accused/Appellant to take a seat, the informant went inside the house but in the meantime, police appeared and caught hold of him, arrested and a revolver was seized from his possession by preparing a seizure memo. A demand letter was also seized. Sanction for prosecution was obtained and charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant alone. 5. On appearance of the accused/Appellant before it, charges were framed against him by the trial Court under Sections 387, IPC and 25(1A) and 27(2) of the Arms Act. A demand letter was also seized. Sanction for prosecution was obtained and charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant alone. 5. On appearance of the accused/Appellant before it, charges were framed against him by the trial Court under Sections 387, IPC and 25(1A) and 27(2) of the Arms Act. The charges when read over and explained to the accused/Appellant, he pleaded not guilty. Altogether 9 witnesses were examined including the informant and Investigating Police Officer. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused/Appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment is not passed on the basis of the materials on record and evidence has not been considered in its proper perspective. There was no independent witnesses to deposed on the act of seizure of the arms and the witnesses who deposed on the question of seizure were only interested persons, like the informant, (P.W. 1), and his wife, (P.W. 5) and police officer, (P.W. 9). That the independent seizure witnesses have deposed that they were not witnesses to any act of seizure of any arms directly from the possession of the accused/Appellant. That sanction for prosecution was not duly proved by examining the officer who issued the order of sanction, etc. 7. I have given my considerations to the submission learned Counsel appearing for the accused/Appellant has made as well as that of the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. Also, perused the materials on record. 8. Documentary evidences adduced are FIR, Ext. 1, seizure lists, Exts. 2 and 3, copy of the G.D. entry, Ext. 4, sanction letter for prosecution, Ext. 5, Armourer's report, Ext. 6 and sketch map of the place of occurrence, Ext. 7. The sanction for prosecution, Ext. 5 will show that sanction was given to prosecute under Sections 25(i)(a)/27 Arms Act but the charge against the accused/Appellant was under Section 25(1A), Arms Act [that too wrongly written in place of 25(1A) of Arms Act]. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused/Appellant has pointed out to all these defects. However, it appears that there was no appropriate cross-examination on these points by the defence counsel during the trial and this defect alone may not be fatal for the prosecution. Since the accusation is having in his possession prohibited arms in violation of Section 7 of the Arms Act, the charge head should have mentioned Section 25(1A). In order to substantiate the charge, the possession must be specifically proved. Ext. Since the accusation is having in his possession prohibited arms in violation of Section 7 of the Arms Act, the charge head should have mentioned Section 25(1A). In order to substantiate the charge, the possession must be specifically proved. Ext. 2 is the seizure list/memo, which has mentioned that the revolver was seized from the body of the accused person Sri. Jayanta Barman @ Deba (accused/Appellant) in the presence of witnesses on 23.9.01 and the names of the witnesses were given as (i) Budhiswor Biswash, (ii) Alokesh Bannan, (iii) Vikram Biswash and (iv) Raju Ray who were examined as P.Ws. 3, 6, 2 and 1 respectively. P.W. 1 is the informant himself. Fatally for the prosecution, none of the independent seizure witnesses examined supported any act of seizure of any arms directly from the possession of the accused/Appellant. P.W. 3 has stated that he saw the accused/Appellant, who was not known to him earlier, under hand-cuffed, in the house of the informant and one object like that of material, Ext. 1 (pistol) was lying on the table. During the cross-examination, he stated he has no knowledge of what was written on the paper upon which his signature was taken. P.W. 6 stated that he along with some other persons was called inside the house by the police and his signature was taken on a document which was written and he has not asked why his signature was taken. He further states that accused/Appellant was found there in a tied-up condition, reason for tied-up-condition was not known to him and he saw the material, Ext. 1 in the hands of the police. P.W. 2 stated that he saw the accused/ Appellant in a tied-up condition in the house of the informant. There were many other people, police asked his name and took his signature stating that one revolver was seized. Therefore, none of the seizure witnesses supported the act of seizure of the incriminating weapon directly from the possession of the accused/Appellant. Without reproducing the same, I find that the deposition of P.W. 1, the informant, and his wife, P.W. 5 are not natural statements and it is difficult to find them as reliable and dependable witnesses. Therefore, none of the seizure witnesses supported the act of seizure of the incriminating weapon directly from the possession of the accused/Appellant. Without reproducing the same, I find that the deposition of P.W. 1, the informant, and his wife, P.W. 5 are not natural statements and it is difficult to find them as reliable and dependable witnesses. P.W. 1 admitted that he is engaged in coal business and it was suggested from the defence that there was some dispute regarding coal business for which the accused/Appellant had been falsely implicated in this case by calling him inside the house of the informant. It will be interesting to note that P.W. 1, in his deposition, stated that accused along with 7-6 persons came to his house at around 6 O'clock. Seeing them he fled away. They left a letter in the hand of his wife and on the following morning when he returned he saw the letter being handed over to him by his wife. His wife, P.W. 5, however, states that 6-7 persons along with the accused came to her house at 8 p.m. and leaving other behind him, only the accused (Appellant) entered inside and handed over a letter asking her to give it to her husband. When her husband returned after 2 days (not following morning as per PW 1), she handed over the letter to him. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 and 5, the most vital, although interested, witnesses also, are discrepant in their initial statements itself. Their conflicting statements along with the absence of any corroboration from the independent witnesses of seizure shake the very foundation of the story. In his deposition, I.O. could hardly probe the case for the prosecution, albeit tried to do so. 9. Therefore, I find the evidence adduced in this case could not prove any case against the accused/Appellant for possessing fire arms without licence and accordingly, may be given the benefit of doubt. The casual nature in which the case was investigated and prosecuted is also demonstrative of the fact that the prosecution story is to be taken with a grain of salt. Equally, the trial Court was also not cautious to play his important role as competent Judge. 10. In the result, appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused/Appellant is set aside. Equally, the trial Court was also not cautious to play his important role as competent Judge. 10. In the result, appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the accused/Appellant is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and is set at liberty forthwith. Order accordingly for his release. 11. Send back the LCR forthwith. Appeal allowed