JUDGMENT Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):- Appellant Ashok was convicted for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Rohtak vide judgment dated 4.5.2002 and vide a separate order dated 6.5.2002 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Case set up by the prosecution is that on 18.7.1997, ASI Badan Singh, Investigating Officer sent a ruqa Ex.PA, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was registered. In the ruqa, it was stated that on 18.7.1997, ASI Badan Singh PW6 was a member of the police party headed by Inspector Ramphal. They had gone in connection with investigation of another case and when they reached back near Harkishan Memorial Public School, Sonepat Road, Rohtak, they received a secret information that five boys had gathered in a house situated in Sectors 2,3,4, HUDA, Rohtak and were planning to commit a dacoity at the house of Kaka Goldsmith. The police party was divided into four raiding teams and proceeded towards the stated place. They stopped their vehicles at some distance from the house. On seeing the police party, the accused made an attempt to run away from the spot but the accused Ashok was apprehended. On his personal search, one loaded pistol of .315 bore was recovered and from the right side dub of his pant, one live cartridge was recovered. 3. The above-said FIR was investigated. After the sanction for prosecution was granted, the accused was sent for trial. 4. Prosecution examined Inspector Ram Kumar as PW1, who proved preparation of report under section 173 Cr.P.C. 5. Same Singh PW2 on receipt of ruqa Ex.PA had registered formal FIR Ex.PA/1. 6. HC Sat Pal, Armourer who appeared as PW3 had tested the pistol and had reported that the same was in a good working condition. He also tested cartridges Exs.P2 and P3, which were recovered from the appellant. This witness proved his report Ex.PB/1. 7. PW6 ASI Badan Singh proved recovery of the weapon. 8. Constable Balwan Singh PW6 was the witness to the recovery and had also attested the recovery memo. 9. Ram Niwas Gupta, Reader to the District Magistrate PW5 proved the sanction order Ex.PC for prosecution of the accused. 10. This witness proved his report Ex.PB/1. 7. PW6 ASI Badan Singh proved recovery of the weapon. 8. Constable Balwan Singh PW6 was the witness to the recovery and had also attested the recovery memo. 9. Ram Niwas Gupta, Reader to the District Magistrate PW5 proved the sanction order Ex.PC for prosecution of the accused. 10. Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating circumstances were put to him. He denied the same and pleaded innocence. 11. In the present case, the police party had conducted the raid after a secret information was received. The secret information was received near a school at Sonepat Road, Rohtak. Besides there being a sufficient time for the police party and the place where secret information was received, being a thoroughfare, no independent witness was associated. Non-examination of any independent witness in the facts and circumstances of the present case will be fatal, when this Court has given no credence to the prosecution version that the accused had assembled and were planning to commit dacoity. A connected appeal filed by the accused viz. Criminal Appeal No.932-SB of 2002 has been accepted by this Court vide a separate order of even date. Hence, this Court extends benefit of doubt to the appellant. 12. Consequently, the present appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. ----------0BSK0----------