Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J. – Petitioner Shailesh Kumar was found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 25(1-B) a of the Arms Act and has been directed to undergo S.I. for two years as well as also slapped with fine of Rs.2000/- in default thereof to additionally undergo S.I. of one month, under Section 26(1) of the Arms Act and directed to undergo S.I. for two years as well as also slapped with fine of Rs.2000/- in default thereof to additionally undergo imprisonment of one month with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently by Shri Lal Bahadur, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hilsa (Nalanda) vide judgment dated 20.10.2006 in G.R. No.84 of 2005 which has been concurred by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa, Nalanda vide judgment dated 02-08-2012 in Cr. Appeal No.37 of 2006 has challenged the successive judgments. 2. PW-1, Arun Kumar Chaudhary recorded his own fardbeyan on 27-01-2005 disclosing therein that during course of conduction of raid in connection with Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 28 of 2005 under Section 364, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code after constituting a raiding party, at about 05:15 A.M. one person was found in suspicious circumstance at Jago Bigha who was apprehended and in presence of two seizure list witnesses Surendra Prasad and Ranjeet Prasad he was searched out and from his possession one country made loaded pistol was found as well as one cartridge .315 bore was also recovered for which seizure list was prepared. 3. Petitioner/accused Shailesh Kumar has been put on trial on account of submission of charge sheet after registration of Ekangarsarai P.S. Case No.29 of 2005 on the basis of the aforesaid written report and met with ultimate consequence, hence this revision. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that none of the seizure list witnesses has been examined in this case nor any explanation has been afforded on behalf of prosecution for their non-examination. 5. In its continuity, it has also been submitted that all the witnesses whosoever been examined are police personnel who, on account of their highhandedness, getting the petitioner involved in this false and concocted case, are most interested, partisan and being so, their evidences are fit to be discarded. 5. In its continuity, it has also been submitted that all the witnesses whosoever been examined are police personnel who, on account of their highhandedness, getting the petitioner involved in this false and concocted case, are most interested, partisan and being so, their evidences are fit to be discarded. It has also been submitted that only four witnesses have been examined out of whom PW-3 and PW-4 are Investigating Authority, PW-2 is ballistic expert and PW-1 is informant himself. The factum of recovery is not at all been supported by any of the independent witness. 6. Now coming to the material exhibit which has been produced in court during course of trial, it has been submitted that same is not at all interlinked as a case property. Consequent thereupon, the successive judgments did not justify it prevalence. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sticking with the finding recorded by the successive courts has submitted that the successive courts have minutely gone through the evidence available on the record. Therefore, during course of revisional jurisdiction, it should not be interfered with. 8. From the written report, it is evident that informant had not mentioned the fact whether any kind of identification mark was put over the arm and ammunition so recovered as well as also failed to disclose whether it was wrapped and sealed. When the evidence of PW-1 has been gone through, apart from reiterating the prosecution version in para-5, he had stated that he came to P.S. along with seized article and handed over investigation to Mandeshwar Rai. In para-26 of his cross-examination he had stated that he had handed over the material exhibit to the I.O. on the date of occurrence itself but is found controverted as per para-22 wherein he stated that he came at P.S. along with material exhibit as well as accused. Accused was kept in lock up while the material exhibit was kept in P.S. Malkhana. In para-24 he had stated that no P.S. Case No. is incorporated over the material exhibit. Pw-3 is the I.O. of later part who after receiving charge of the case, got the arm and cartridge examined by the ballistic expert. Whether it was wrapped or sealed, and from where it was obtained, has not been detailed by him. PW-4 is the I.O. of earlier part who was also member of raiding party. Pw-3 is the I.O. of later part who after receiving charge of the case, got the arm and cartridge examined by the ballistic expert. Whether it was wrapped or sealed, and from where it was obtained, has not been detailed by him. PW-4 is the I.O. of earlier part who was also member of raiding party. In his examination-in-chief he had not mentioned the fact that PW-1 informant had handed over the material exhibit to him as soon as he became I.O. of the case. He had further mentioned the fact under para-3 of his cross-examination that he had not put any kind of identification mark over the arm and ammunition. 9. PW-2 is the ballistic expert. He had stated that the case property of Ekangarsarai (Parwalpur) P.S. Case No.29 of 2005 was produced before him in sealed condition. He had tested and found the arms and ammunition effective one. In para-2 of his examination-in-chief he had mentioned the fact that after examining the arms and ammunition he had sign over the aforesaid material exhibit and then sealed it. Thereafter it was handed over to the Investigating Authority but the same is not at all found supported. When the material exhibit was placed before the court through the evidence of PW-1, the informant himself. From para-8 of his evidence, it is apparent that the sealed packet was opened where from one country made pistol and .315 bore cartridge was taken out which happens to be belonging to Ekangarsarai (Parwalpur) P.S. Case No.29 of 2005. It is further evident that it contains the signature of ACJM. There is no disclosure that it ever contained signature of PW-2. As stated above PW-2 had categorically stated that after examination of arms and ammunition, he had put his sign and then sealed it. That means to say the material exhibit which was produced before the court was not the same material exhibit which was examined by the PW-2. In the aforesaid background, the connectivity of material exhibit having in possession of petitioner is found completely dismantled. 10. That means to say the material exhibit which was produced before the court was not the same material exhibit which was examined by the PW-2. In the aforesaid background, the connectivity of material exhibit having in possession of petitioner is found completely dismantled. 10. In Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1998 SC 1660 it has been held: – “3.What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution evidence itself shows that the pistol and cartridges alleged to have been recovered from the appellant did not have any number or some distinctive mark on them and after their seizure by the police they were sealed. Thus the identity of the weapon and the cartridges seized and the weapon and cartridges produced before the Court was not established by the prosecution. Having gone through the evidence, we find that contention raised on behalf of the appellant is correct and, therefore, deserves to be accepted. The pistol and the cartridges did not have any mark or any number on them and after seizing the same police had not thought it fit to wrap them and apply a seal over them. No explanation in that behalf was given by the prosecution witnesses. This aspect was not considered by the trial Court. As the identity of the incriminating articles has not been established by the prosecution, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant both under Section 5 of the TADA Act and 25 of the Arms Act and acquit him of all the charges levelled against him.” 11. Thus, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not been able to interlink the material exhibit having been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and on account thereof, the finding of guilt of petitioner by the successive courts are found unsubstantiated. Consequent thereupon, successive judgments are set aside. Petition is allowed. Petitioner is under custody hence is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.