ORDER 1. This revision has been filed assailing the order dated 6.8.2003 passed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 311/02 convicting the accused under section 25 (I-B) (b) of the Arms Act and upholding the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment passed by the trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on the date of incident i.e. 8.2.1994, an information was received at police station, Tukoganj that opposite Disneyland, Indore at around 2: 10 p.m. accused Kalebabu was roaming around with an open spring knife and scaring passers-by, whereupon ASI Shri Ramsharan Soni PW 4 alongwith task force who were on the beat in the said vicinity went to the spot and found the accused wielding a spring knife without licence which was contrary to the notification issued by the State Government under section 4 of the Arms Act and consequently, the officer proceeded to arrest the accused and the offence was registered under section 25 (I-B) (b) of the Arms Act. The trial Court examined five witnesses and recorded their statements. 3. The accused abjured his guilt and stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. The petitioner accused however, did not examine any witness in his defence. 4. The trial Court on considering the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the petitioner accused was guilty as charged and sentenced him with punishment of one year's rigorious imprisonment without fine. On being aggrieved, the petitioner accused filed an appeal before the appellate Court where the appellate Court also upheld the conviction and sentence and hence, the present revision. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the accused petitioner has stated that the entire prosecution story was manipulated and unreliable due to the single fact that the weapon seized from the accused petitioner was never produced in the Court and if the basis of the conviction was notification issued under section 4 of the Arms Act, then the weapon seized should also be produced in Court to verify the specification and its non-production was fatal to the prosecution. Relying on Baijnath Singh v. State of M.P. [ 1998 (2) JLJ 69 ] learned counsel stated that this Court in the similar matter allowed the revision petition for the simple reason that the article seized was not produced before the Court in order to bring home the guilt which was punishable under the aforesaid notification and stated that the petitioner in this case should also be granted the benefit of acquittal. Learned counsel also urged that there was several other factors, which vitiated the investigation. The independent witnesses of recovery of the knife had turned hostile and their testimony ought not to be considered regarding the seizure and when the seizure itself was doubtful, the conviction ought to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner accused further submitted that since the Investigating Officer was also the officer who had seized the weapon, the conviction was bad in law and both the Courts below had relied on the testimony of PW 4 Shri Ramsharan Soni, ASI for the conviction of the accused. Learned counsel also stated that the notification, which restricted the possession of spring knife having a blade more than 6" inch long was not duly filed in accordance with law since the photo copy was placed on record. Learned counsel averred that the independent witnesses who were witnesses to seizure were also the informants and therefore, their testimony was not reliable. The entire investigation as well as conviction were contrary to the provisions of law and prayed for setting aside the order of the appellate Court, which had failed to consider the objections raised. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand has stated that the notification by the State Government dated 22.11.1994 was issued in public interest. It was a proved fact that accused Kalebabu was roaming around brandishing an open spring knife contrary to the specification in the notification and threatening the people around, which was admittedly a public place since he was found in the vicinity of Disneyland on the Dhakkanwala Kuwa road and the accused had been apprehended along with knife and although the evidence relied by both the Courts below was that of police persons including the Investigating Officer, there is no need to disbelieve the Public Officials in the course of their duties. 8. 8. On considering the above submissions and perusing the entire records as well as the impugned judgment, I find that even if it is admitted that a long spring knife was wielded by the accused and the arrest and investigation was in accordance with law, the evidence led by the Public Officers need not to be doubted. The seizure would not be doubted because it is a trite law to state that the evidence of police officer effecting the recovery cannot be discarded merely because the panch witnesses have turned hostile relying on Madansingh v. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1978 SC 1511 ] and Vahaji v. State of Gujrat [2004 CrLJ .119]. Even if the fact is appreciated that the seizure and investigation were in accordance with law, the prosecution story loses its efficacy when the article seized was not produced before the Court, moreover, it is admitted that the knife seized from the possession of the accused was not actually used to commit any further offence. So also if, the foundation of the offence was based on the notification then it was the duty of the prosecution to produce the article seized before the Court to prove that the arm or weapon was contrary to the prescribed size. Mere oral statement of the witnesses could not be said to be sufficient as the seizure witness had turned hostile and since the foundation of the offence itself depended on the article then it was an utmost importance that it ought to be produced before the trial Court. 9. On perusing the record, I find that in proceeding dated 6.2.1994, it has been recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the seized article Muddamal be deposited to the Malkhana, but the knife has not been marked as an article/exhibit nor is there any evidence taken on record in the Court regarding its specification although the recovery memo Ex. P-1 and the ASI Shri Soni make a mention of its size and specification. P-1 and the ASI Shri Soni make a mention of its size and specification. Then considering these facts on the touchstone of Baijnath Singh (supra), the Court had observed that this aspect has not been taken seriously by the Courts below and in the absence of the alleged sword the petitioner could not have been convicted because it cannot be said that the article exceeded the prohibited measurement, it could not be established beyond all reasonable doubt and the Court had allowed the revision petition by acquitting the accused, then I find that the circumstances are very much similar to the present case and a very valuable right to adduce evidence, which is mandatory under the provisions of law as well as the principles of the natural justice an opportunity has been denied to the petitioner accused. It would then be profitable to rely on Jitendra and another v. State of M.P. [2004 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 30 = AIR 2003 SC 4236 ] whereby the apex Court held thus: "The best evidence would have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects. There is no explanation for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as to their features and production of panchanama does not discharge the heavy burden which lies on the prosecution, particularly where the offence is punishable with a stringent sentence as under the NDPS, Act". 10. Hence, it could be properly conclued that this insufficiency of the evidence would entitle the accused petitioner to the benefit of doubt coupled with the fact that the incident is of the year 1994, more than a decade has lapsed and therefore, the judgment of the appellate Court as well as the trial Court is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the offence under section 25 (l-B) (b) & 4 of the Arms Act, 1959. 11. With the above circumstances, the revision petition is allowed. The accused petitioner is on bail; his bail bond and surety bond shall stand discharged.