JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 20th May, 2000 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 802 of 1997 whereby the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 25 (1) (a) and 26 (1) of the Arms Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and three years respectively. The sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The written report has been filed by the Officer-in-charge of the Kharagpur Police Station alleging that he raided the house of the appellant at about 3 AM on 25.04.1996. At the time of the raid, he was accompanied by several other police constables. On raid, some persons ran away from the house. The informant seized one country made loaded rifle with muzzle loading rod and ‘newar’, one country made muzzle loading gun, one country made pistol, four pieces of barrel for manufacturing guns and pistols, one iron burma, one spring, 18 pieces of trigger and trigger guard, one pieces of ‘ranga’ and some small instrument and apparatus for manufacturing rifle, gun and pistol. Seizure was made in presence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report, the trial commenced. Eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in this case. PW 1 Narayan Mahto, PW 2 Suresh Rai and PW3 Rajendra Prasad Rai are the seizure list witnesses. They have not supported the seizure inasmuch as they have stated that they have signed on the seizure list but were not present at the time when the actual seizure was made. 4. PW 4 Irfan Ahmad, PW 6 Sunil Topono and PW 7 Md. Shamsul Alam are the witnesses to the occurrence. PW 7 Md. Shamsul Alam is the informant of this case. The Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined by the prosecution. The sanction order has been proved by PW 8. 5. It is apparent that the seizure has not been proved inasmuch as the witnesses have resiled from their earlier statements. The seizure list articles were also not produced before the Trial Court, much less sent to the Forensic Science laboratory to ascertain as to whether the fire-arms seized were in working condition and whether the articles seized are utilized for the purpose of manufacturing the arms. The seizure list articles were also not produced before the Trial Court, much less sent to the Forensic Science laboratory to ascertain as to whether the fire-arms seized were in working condition and whether the articles seized are utilized for the purpose of manufacturing the arms. Nevertheless, it would appear that the prosecution has supported the case of raid as well as the seizure. However, the law provides check and balances so that no person is convicted without proper evidence in a case. 6. From the facts aforesaid, it would appear that there are three circumstances in favour of the appellant. Firstly, the seizure list witnesses do not support the contents of the seizure list, secondly the seized articles were not produced before the Trial Court; and thirdly there is no report of the expert to show that the seized articles were in working condition or were workable and capable of being utilized for manufacturing fire-arms. 7. Under these circumstances, this Court acquits the appellant for the charges levelled against him and set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 20th May, 2000 passed in Sessions Case No. 802 of 1997. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed.