Judgment R.R. Pd, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.1.2000 passed by the then VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No.273 of 1995A whereby and whereunder the appellant having been found guilty for the offence under Section 25(i)(b) of the Arms Act was sentenced for the period already undergone. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when an information was received on 17.6.1994 in the Kotwali Police Station that some miscreants have assembled at Naga Baba Khatal for the purpose of committing dacoity, the informant, Brij Bihari Ram (P.W.3) who at the relevant point of time was Officer-in-Charge of Kotwali Police Station along with other police personnel including Nav Kant Jha (P.W.4) as well as Investigating Officer, T.P.Gupta (P.W.6) raided the house of accused Mannu Yadav. There the police arrested four persons, who disclosed their names as Mannu Yadav @ Munni Lal Yadav, Manoj Thakur (appellant), Sugriv Mishra and Amrit Bahadur. They on being searched found in possession of country made pistol as well as cartridges. So far this appellant is concerned, he was found in possession of country made pistol as well as one cartridge. All those firearms and cartridges were seized. Thereupon when search was made of the house of Mannu Yadav, the police seized Rs.6000/-in cash and some silver coins which had been kept in a box. The police also recovered explosive bomb from the possession of Sugriv Mishra. The accused persons confessed before the police that they had assembled there for the purpose of committing dacoity. 3. Thereafter, Brij Bihari Ram (P.W.3) submitted a written report (Ext.1), upon which formal FIR (Ext.2) was drawn whereby a case was registered as Kotwali P.S. Case no.291 of 1994 under Sections 399, 402, 412 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 25(1)(b), 26, 35 of the Arms Act and also under Section 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. 4. When the matter was taken up for investigation, the Investigating Officer, T.P.Gupta (P.W.6) recorded the statements of Vijoy Kumar Yadav (P.W.1) and Gyan Chand Yadav (P.W.2),the independent witnesses in whose presence search and seizure had been made. The firearm seized, sent for its examination with respect to its effectiveness before Shilvanus Bhakla (P.W.5), Sergeant Major, who on examination submitted report (Ext.4) reporting therein that all the arms and ammunitions sent for examination were found effective. The firearm seized, sent for its examination with respect to its effectiveness before Shilvanus Bhakla (P.W.5), Sergeant Major, who on examination submitted report (Ext.4) reporting therein that all the arms and ammunitions sent for examination were found effective. After procuring sanction order (Ext.5), charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of session where this appellant was put on trial on the charges framed under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(i)(b) of the Arms Act along with Sugriv Mishra, Amrit Bahadur, Mannu Yadav, Babuwa @ Varis Ansari and Javed Ansari. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Of them, P. Ws. 1 and 2 seizure list witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution that from the possession of the accused persons, firearms had been recovered and thereby both of them turned hostile. P.W.3, the informant and also P.W.4, a member of raiding party did support that when the accused persons were found in possession of firearms and ammunitions, it was recovered from their possession and were seized. After examination of four witnesses, the accused persons namely, Mannu Yadav, Babuwa @ Varis Ansari and this appellant absconded. Therefore, the case of co-accused Sugriv Mishra and Amrit Bahadur, who were in custody was separated and the trial proceeded whereby judgment was pronounced against them on 3.3.1998. Thereafter this appellant appeared in this case and then trial proceeded. 6. It be stated that in course of trial of the aforesaid two persons, Sugriv Mishra and Amrit Bahadur, two witnesses namely, Shilvanus Bhakla and T.P.Gupta who had examined effectiveness of the arms and ammunitions and also Investigating Officer, who had proved the arms recovered from the possession of the accused persons as Exts. (i)(ii)(iii) and (iv). Cartridges as material Ext.(v) had been examined by P.W.5 and P.W.6, When this appellant did appear and trial proceeded, summons as well as other steps were taken for securing attendance of the P.Ws.5 and 6 but they never turned up. Ultimately, the case was closed and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. 7. Ultimately, the case was closed and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. 7. On the basis of the materials, particularly the evidences of P.W.3 and P.W.4, the court found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 25(i)(b) of the Arms Act whereas he was acquitted for the offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. While holding the appellant guilty under Section 25(i)(b) of the Arms Act, the court did record that since P.Ws. 5 and 6 have given evidence in absence of the appellant, it need not to be taken into account. At the same time, it was also recorded that the court will also not be taking into account of the factum of production of arms in the court. However, the court having put reliance on the evidences of P.Ws. 3 and 4 did record the order of conviction and sentence. 8. Being aggrieved with that order, this appeal has been preferred. 9. Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly P.Ws. 1 and 2 seizure list witnesses have never supported the case of the prosecution regarding recovery of the arms and ammunitions from the possession of the appellant and thereby they have been declared hostile. Of course, P.W.3, the informant and P.W.4, a members of the raiding party have supported the case of the prosecution that the firearm was recovered from the possession of the appellant but the said arms and ammunitions cannot be taken to have been produced in the court in the context of the case of the appellant as admittedly P.Ws 5 and 6 had adduced their evidences in absence of this appellant and the court himself has recorded that on account of that fact, evidences of P.W.5 and 6 need not to be used in the case of the appellant. 10. Therefore, what emerges is that arms and ammunitions allegedly recovered from the possession of this appellant would not be deemed to have been produced before the court. 11. Further I do find that P.W. 3 in his evidence has deposed that firearms seized from the possession of accused person was sealed but P.W.5 in his cross-examination has categorically stated that firearms had never been sent before him in sealed condition. 11. Further I do find that P.W. 3 in his evidence has deposed that firearms seized from the possession of accused person was sealed but P.W.5 in his cross-examination has categorically stated that firearms had never been sent before him in sealed condition. In that event, evidence of P.W.3 that the firearms recovered were sealed cannot be accepted. In that event, tampering with the arms and ammunitions cannot be ruled out and this infirmity would be fatal for the prosecution case. 12. In this regard I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Amarjit Singh @ Babbu vs. State of Punjab [1995 Supp (3) SCC 217] wherein it has been observed by their Lordships that non-sealing of the revolver on the spot is serious infirmity because the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out. 13. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Sahib Singh vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1997 SC 2417 ). 14. Under the circumstances, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.1.2000 is hereby set aside. 15. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted and is discharged from the bail bond. Appeal allowed