ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional P.P. 2. Petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 25(1B) a of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for two years as well as fined Rs.2000/- in default thereof to undergo two months imprisonment, under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fined Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for one month additionally, with further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment dated 29.03.2007 by Sri Ram Chandra Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nalanda at Biharsharif in G.R.No.1665 of 2003, found modified vide judgment dated 03.04.2013 passed in Cr. Appeal No.98 of 2007 by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Nalanda at Biharsharif, maintaining conviction and sentence only with regard to 25(1B)a of the Arms Act, has challenged the same under instant revision. P.W.1 Birbadan Singh along with police party while had gone to village- Dumari on 16.10.2003, after getting confidential information, conducted raid at the house of petitioner and from northern room lying at upper floor one .315 bore country made rifle, one country made stand gun, .315 bore two live cartridges, three live cartridges of .303 bore were seized having been kept over a bed in covered condition in presence of two seizure list witnesses Krishna Murari Menon and Pappu Kumar for which petitioner has been booked and ultimately faced the judgment of conviction and sentence put under challenge in the instant revision petition. 3. From the Lower Court Record, it is apparent that only three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of whom P.W.1 is Birbadan Singh, the informant, P.W.2 is Nagendra Singh, I.O. and P.W.3 is Srikant Singh, the Sergeant Major coupled with exhibit of documentary evidence as well as the material exhibit. 4. After going through the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that in spite of having such deadly weapons recovered from the house of the petitioner, the prosecution has taken the event in casual way, did not take the precautions which is to be taken up in its due course in case there happens to be recovery of unlicensed fire arms. The evidence of P.W.2 is much more vulnerable who even did not care to visit the place of occurrence as is evident from his evidence at para-13. The evidence of P.W.2 is much more vulnerable who even did not care to visit the place of occurrence as is evident from his evidence at para-13. In terms of Section 172(2) of the Cr.P.C., case diary should be used for the purpose of arriving at a particular conclusion during course of the judgment but its reference may have in terms thereof and so exercising such restrain, when the case diary has been gone through, it is a matter of shock and surprise that P.W.2 had never visited the place of occurrence which, the P.W.2 had accepted in his cross-examination at para-36. 5. The other crucial aspect is with regard to joint possession of the house from where alleged recovery has been shown. From the evidence of P.W.1 para-2, it is evident that he had gone to enquire into the allegation made by brother of the petitioner. In para-6 of his cross-examination, he had disclosed that Chandradeo Prasad Yadav @ Chandradeo Yadav having four brothers and his father is alive. He shown ignorance with regard to seven brothers of Chandradeo Prasad Yadav @ Chandradeo Yadav. In para-7 of his cross-examination, he had disclosed that when he gone inside the house, he found female folk, children alongwith male members of the family. He did not make query with regard to numbers of the family members. P.W.2, the investigating officer in para-31 of his cross-examination stated that he had not tried to enquire about the family members of Chandradeo Prasad Yadav @ Chandradeo Yadav. In the aforesaid background, there would be the joint possession and on account thereof, the petitioner should have been charged with the aid of Section 35 of the Arms Act and along with other family members. In absence thereof, it should have been brought up by the prosecution that the room from where the alleged recovery has been shown must have been under exclusive possession of the petitioner. Surprisingly, again the prosecution kept mum. 6. The third aspect as is evident that none of the P.Ws. have stated that the seized arms and ammunition was ever wrapped and sealed. The other deficiency which is coming out from the evidence of P.W.3, the ballistic expert is that from his examination-in-chief, it is apparent that after examining the arms and ammunition, he had put identification mark-A over the country made rifle while mark-B over country made stengun. have stated that the seized arms and ammunition was ever wrapped and sealed. The other deficiency which is coming out from the evidence of P.W.3, the ballistic expert is that from his examination-in-chief, it is apparent that after examining the arms and ammunition, he had put identification mark-A over the country made rifle while mark-B over country made stengun. However, no marking was made over the five cartridges (3 of .303 bore and 2 of .315 bore). Fortunately, the prosecution has brought up material exhibit through this witness and from para-5 of his examination-in-chief, it is apparent that both the arms which, as per that earlier version contains identification marks-A and B respectively, was found missing. Therefore, such absence virtually loosen grip of the prosecution case with regard to genuineness of the material exhibit which was ever seized from the house of the petitioner and was examined by P.W.3 himself. 7. In the aforesaid background, it is evident that prosecution is victim of its own lapses. Consequent thereupon, the successive judgments rendered by the learned courts below identifying the petitioner to be guilty for an offence punishable under Section 25-(1B)a of the Arms Act is found not at all sustainable. As such, is set aside. Petition is allowed. Petitioner who is in custody is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 8. Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to learned Additional P.P. who will transmit the same to the high up police officials to see how perfunctory investigation are being carried out leading to clean acquittal of the accused and further to avoid such recurrence by issuing necessary instructions/guidelines relating to manner of investigation at least under Arms Act.