JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.-Prosecution case initiated on self-statement of Sub-inspector B.K. Medhavi, Officer-in-Charge of Bakhtiyarpur Police Station in brief is that on 3.12.2006 at about 19.10 hours, he received confidential information about coming of Raj Kumar Yadav @ Kumar Yadav (present appellant of the case) who was wanted accused along with arms. A sanha was recorded to the above effect, S.D.P.O. Barh was informed about the same on telephone. A police party was constituted under the direction of S.D.P.O. 8arh which under the leadership of S.D.P.O. Barh proceeded for Tekhabigha and reached there on 20.10 hours. As soon as they reached in front of the house of accused Raj Kumar Yadav, one person sitting in front of verandah ran away from there. He was identified by Nasibi Pal. chaukidar mahal in light of torch and commando, police party chased him, but he managed his escape good taking benefit of dark night. Neighbours assembled and house of the accused-appellant was searched in their presence including independent witnesses namely Bhajju Kumar and Raushan Kumar observing the rules of search and seizure. From Eastern room is said of appellant one police rifle with loaded two live 303 cartridges, one regular rifle .315 bore were recovered and seized. It is said that wife informed the police party that both the rifles and cartridges belonged to her husband (this appellant), who escaped from the place of occurrence. Recovered arms and ammunitions were duly seized. After concluding the trial the same ended in conviction and sentence under Section 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act. 2. In all, thirteen (13) witnesses are examined in the case, they are PW 1 Md. Sailul Haque informant of the case, PW 2 Birendra Kumar Medhavi, PW 3 Surendra Paswan, PW 4 Ram Shankar Rai, PW 5 Dhanju Kumar, PW 6 Nand Kishore Singh, PW 7 Ravindra Nath Dubey, PW 8 Shiv Nath Prasad Singh I.O. of the case, PW 9 Yogendra Jha, PW 10 Kedar Nath Singh, PW 11 Rajendra Kumar Singh, PW 12 Suresh Chandra Paswan one of the I.Os. of the case and PW 13 Lal Miki Kumar Singh. Of them PW 9 is driver of the vehicle has not stated in favour of prosecution, so he has been declared hostile. PW 8 and PW 12 are Investigating Officers of the case. PW 3 is a witness, who has produced seized and sealed rifle in the Court. of the case and PW 13 Lal Miki Kumar Singh. Of them PW 9 is driver of the vehicle has not stated in favour of prosecution, so he has been declared hostile. PW 8 and PW 12 are Investigating Officers of the case. PW 3 is a witness, who has produced seized and sealed rifle in the Court. PW 4 has got exhibited material Exhibits I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII rifles and cartridges. Rests of the witnesses including PW 4 are members of raiding party. PW 5 is a seizure list witness. 3. House from where one police rifle, one regular rifle and cartridges are recovered, is not denied in the case rather seizure is doubted on the ground that no independent witness is examined on the point of seizure and sole independent witness namely PW 5 is denying his presence at the time of recovery and seizure referring his statement that his signature was obtained on a plain paper. Further it is said that copy of seizure list if really was prepared not delivered to the appellant, occupant of the room from where same (arms and ammunitions) were seized nor to any person in his behalf present there. 4. PW 1 informant of the case and PW 2 are the witnesses to state that seizure was in their presence and in presence of two independent witnesses, they are named as Dhanu Kumar and Raushan. Raushan is not examined in the case, Dhanu Kumar is only admitting his signature on seizure list, but while it was plain paper. Seizure list is exhibited in the case as Exhibit-1 as identified by PW 1. Sub-section-4 of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. provides for search and seizure in presence of independent witnesses. According to prosecution that has been complied, only both the witnesses are not examined rather one is examined and he is denying his presence, but once seizure list is exhibited and signature on it, is not denied by the seizure list witness, no doubt, can be cast on seizure list which is consequence of seizure. Another point raise on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant is non-compliance of sub-section 6 of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. which runs as follows:- "Persons in charge of closed place to allow search. Another point raise on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant is non-compliance of sub-section 6 of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. which runs as follows:- "Persons in charge of closed place to allow search. 100.(6) The occupant of the place searched, or some person in his behalf, shall, in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person." 5. In this case search is from appellant's room. He should be permitted to attend during the search and a copy of the list prepared under this section signed by the witnesses should be delivered to him, but as appeared in this case, he ran away from the place of seizure that can be said that he did not opt his attendance. In his behalf, witnesses are there to state that his wife was present and according to appellant, copy of seizure list should be delivered to her in his absence, but that is not applicable for the appellant who voluntarily left the place rather ran away from the place of his occupation to save himself from the consequences of accusation. There can be said none in his behalf. 6. PW 1 is stating about cartridges of 303 and PW 2 .315 bore, but two rifles are seized in the case, 303 was for use of one rifle and .315 for another. It is apparent from the seizure list also. Seized arms and ammunitions (rifles and cartridges) are examined by PW 11 to be effective police rifle, regular rifle and live cartridges. As about new paper for seal, prosecution case is clear that after seizure arms were sealed and sent for their examination, thereafter a fresh seal came in existence. So, the prosecution case cannot be doubted on this point also. Moreover, the trial Court has elaborately discussed the points raised by defence and rightly has concluded for conviction and sentence. 7. On the observation made above, evidence and circumstances of the case, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2009 and order of sentence dated 16.12.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No.286 of 2008 is affirmed. Appellant will be entitled to be set off for the period undergone in course of trial. I.A. No. 1355 of 2011. 8. 7. On the observation made above, evidence and circumstances of the case, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2009 and order of sentence dated 16.12.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No.286 of 2008 is affirmed. Appellant will be entitled to be set off for the period undergone in course of trial. I.A. No. 1355 of 2011. 8. The Interlocutory Application has been filed for release of the rifle of the petitioner bearing No.AB-831456 before this Court. 9. Now, the appeal is disposed of, the prayer may be sought from the trial Court for which he (appellant) is so advised. 10. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application No.1355 of 2011 is hereby disposed of. 11. A copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent back to the trial Court forthwith. Appeal dismissed.