JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 30-04-1997 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 321/91. By the impugned judgment, appellant Raju @ Judge Khan and co-accused Krishna have been convicted under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (henceforth 'the Act, 1959') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. Three other co-accused Mohan, Mohammad Naseem and Abdul Hamid have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. Other co-accused, namely, Premchand, Trilok Singh, Sarvan, Ramprasad and Omprakash have been declared absconded. 2. Co-accused Krishna has also been convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment in the manner mentioned above, but this appeal has been preferred by appellant Raju @ Judge Khan only. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under : Inspector Sanjay Borkar (PW-3) was posted as Station House Officer in Police Station Bhilai Bhatti on 24-01-1991 and Sub-Inspector Pranesh Dubey (PW-4) was posted as Sub-Inspector in the said police station. On 24-01-1991, Inspector Sanjay Borkar (PW-3) received information that some persons were making preparation for committing dacoity. After receiving the information they went near Sector 1, Railway Station, Bhilai and surrounded the area. One matador No. C.P.K. 1187 was standing there and appellant Raju @ Judge Khan and other co-accused persons were sitting inside the matador. One person was sitting on stearing. On being enquired, the appellant and other co-accused persons told their names to the police party. The accused persons were searched by police party and desi katta, rod, khukhari, nakab, torch, cartridge were seized from the accused persons and a knife (chaku) was seized from appellant Raju @ Judge Khan. Seizure memo (Ex.-P/4) was prepared on the spot and knife (chaku) was recovered and seized from appellant Raju @ Judge Khan in presence of witnesses. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused persons in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Durg, from where it was received on transfer by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced appellant Raju @ Judge Khan and co-accused Krishna, as mentioned above. 4. 4. Shri M.D. Dhote, learned counsel for the appellant argued that a person can be convicted under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Act, 1959 only if such person acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under Section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of Section 4 and as in this case, notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1959 has not been produced or proved before the Court below, the appellant could not be convicted under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Act, 1959. He further argued that Inspector Sanjay Borkar (PW-3) did not state regarding the description of the knife (chaku) and he further submitted that the seized knife (chaku) was not produced before the trial Court. Independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be based on the evidence of Inspector Sanjay Barkar (PW-3) and Sub-Inspector Pranesh Dubey (PW-4). Hence, the appellant deserves acquittal. 5. On the other hand, Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant do not call for any interference, by this Court. 6. To properly appreciate the arguments raised by Shri M.D. Dhote, learned counsel for the appellant, it would be necessary to refer to Sections 25(1B)(b) and 4 of the Act, 1959. Section 25(1B) (b) of the Act, 1959 provides that whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under Section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of that section; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 4 of the Act, 1959 reads as under: "4. Section 4 of the Act, 1959 reads as under: "4. Licence for acquisition and possession of arms of specified description in certain cases.-If the Central Government is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances prevailing in any area it is necessary or expedient in the public interest that the acquisition, possession or carrying of arms other than firearms, should also be regulated, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that this section shall apply to the area specified in the notification and thereupon no person shall acquire, have in his possession or carry in that area arms of such class or description as may be specified in that notification unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rulers made thereunder." 7. According to Section 4 of the Act, 1959, if the Central Government is of opinion that certain restrictions should be placed on acquisition, possession or carrying of arms other than firearms, then a notification is to be issued by the Central Government directing that Section 4 shall apply to the area specified in the notification and thereupon no person shall acquire, have in his possession or carry in that area arms of such class or description, as may be specified in the said notification without licence. 8. Conjoint reading of Sections 4 and 25(1B)(b) of the Act, 1959 would make it clear that the Central Government has to form its opinion and then issue a notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1959 to regulate possession of the arms. If the notification is issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1959, not only the area is to be specified but class or description of the arms is also to be provided. After such a notification is issued, if any person is found in possession of the arms of such description or class without a licence in the notified area, then only, such a person can be convicted under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Act, 1959. 9. The prosecution did not bring on record the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1959. In my considered opinion, in absence of the notification, the accused could not be convicted for offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Act, 1959. 9. The prosecution did not bring on record the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1959. In my considered opinion, in absence of the notification, the accused could not be convicted for offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Act, 1959. In the instant case, the knife (chaku), which was seized from possession of the appellant, was not produced before the trial Court. It was the duty of the prosecution to produce the seized article before the Court to prove that the arm or weapon was contrary to the prescribed size. Mere oral statement of the witnesses could not be said to be sufficient as the seizure witness had turned hostile and since the foundation of the offence itself depended on the article then it was an utmost importance that it ought to have been produced before the trial Court. 10. In the instant case, Inspector Sanjay Borkar (PW-3) did not speak regarding the description of the seized knife (chaku) and the seized knife (chaku) was not marked as an article/exhibit nor was there any evidence taken on record in the trial Court regarding its specification. Although recovery memo (Ex.-P/4) mentions its size and specification but Inspector Sanjay Borkar (PW-3) did not speak regarding the description and specification of the seized knife (chaku). 11. In Jitendra and another Vs. State of MP AIR 2003 SC 4236 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus : "The best evidence would have been the seized materials which out to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects. There is no explanation for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as to their features and production of panchnama does not discharge the heavy burden which lies on the prosecution, particularly where the offence is punishable with a stringent sentence as under the NDPS Act." 12. As the prosecution has failed to prove or bring on record the notification regulating possession of arm of the class or description in a particular area, the accused could not be convicted for offence under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Act, 1959. 13. In the result, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. It is stated that he is on bail. 13. In the result, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. It is stated that he is on bail. His bail bonds are continued for a period of 6 months from today. Appeal Allowed.