JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat, under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.6.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.2, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.127 of 2002 whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(A), 25(1)(1-AA), 25(1)(1-B)(F) of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. It is the prosecution case that on 5.7.2001, the Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar called complainant Mr. M.N. Sarviya, Police Inspector, LCB, Jamnagar and informed him to initiate necessary proceedings as one person namely Abu Bakar of Salayaa, Taluka Khambhalia wants to produce illegal foreign pistol with cartridge before the police. Necessary panchnama was drawn and thereafter a criminal case bearing No.II-319/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(A), 25(1)(1-AA), 25(1)(1-B)(F) of the Arms Act, 1959 was registered with Jamnagar City “A” Division Police Station. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar. However, as the case was exclusively sessions triable, the same was committed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.2, Jamnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the case was registered as Sessions Case No.127 of 2002. 3. In order to prove the case against the present respondent-accused, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences. At the end of trial, after recording statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and after hearing arguments on behalf of the prosecution and defence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent from all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 30.6.2005. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 5. This Court has heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent. 6. Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP has argued that the impugned judgment and order is against the provisions of law as the learned trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondent. Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP has argued that the impugned judgment and order is against the provisions of law as the learned trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondent. Mr. Pujari, learned APP has taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. He has submitted that the learned Trial Court has not properly considered the deposition of Satishchandra Premprasad Verma, Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, at exhibit 42, who has categorically deposed that the accused had requested to produce the weapon before the police and therefore, he immediately informed Mr. Sarviya, Police Inspector, LCB, Jamnagar, to initiate necessary procedure. Even requisite sanction was also obtained from the District Magistrate, Jamnagar, however, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence. The complainant, Mr. Sarviya, Police Inspector, LCB, Jamnagar who deposed at exhibit 44, also supported the case of the prosecution. He has further contended that the learned Trial Court erred in holding that only on the basis of depositions of police witnesses, the accused cannot be convicted as the independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. It is further contended by him that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. He has further submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondent for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 25(1)(A), 25(1)(1-AA), 25(1)(1-B) (F) of the Arms Act, 1959, which requires to be reversed and the accused in required to be convicted as such. 7. Per contra, Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 7. Per contra, Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He has submitted that at the end of trial, while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has denied the fact put forth by the prosecution regarding recovery of any illegal foreign pistol with cartridge from his possession and he has further deposed that due to animosity, the police has implicated him in false case as at that time he had raised issue of shoddy probe in the death of his brother. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence on record and rightly recorded the finding and acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against him and even no iota of evidence is available to link the accused with the charges levelled against him. Consequently therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference by this Court. 8. This Court has minutely perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court as well as paper book and evidence adduced by the prosecution in its entirety and has also considered the submissions made by Mr. Pujari, learned APP for the appellant-State and Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent. 9. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties to the present proceedings and having perused the impugned judgment as well as records and proceedings, it clearly reveals that upon receiving instruction from the Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar to initiate necessary proceedings as one person namely Abu Bakar of Salaya wants to produce illegal foreign pistol with cartridge before the police, the complainant Mr. M.N. Sarviya, Police Inspector, LCB, Jamnagar initiated necessary proceedings. Requisite panchnama was drawn and ultimately charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(A), 25(1)(1-AA), 25(1)(1-B)(F) of the Arms Act, 1959. 10. On going through the evidence recorded, it is noticed that the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and produced 20 documentary evidence. Out of the witnesses examined, it is noticed that panch witnesses-Osman Kasambhai Sheikh, Isaqh Abbas Hingora, Shivgar Mangar and Gagjibha Jivubha who are examined vide Exhs.16,17,18 and 19 respectively have not supported the case of prosecution and therefore they were declared as hostile witnesses. Out of the witnesses examined, it is noticed that panch witnesses-Osman Kasambhai Sheikh, Isaqh Abbas Hingora, Shivgar Mangar and Gagjibha Jivubha who are examined vide Exhs.16,17,18 and 19 respectively have not supported the case of prosecution and therefore they were declared as hostile witnesses. Navalsinh Mohabbatsinh, Armour, who examined the illegal weapon is examined at exhibit-22 and he is declared as hostile witness. 11. Satishchandra Premprasad Verma, Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, is examined at exhibit 42, who has deposed that as the accused wanted to produce illegal weapon before the police and therefore, he immediately informed Mr. Sarviya, Police Inspector, LCB, Jamnagar, to initiate necessary procedure. Necessary sanction was also obtained from the District Magistrate, Jamnagar. Complainant - Mahavirsinh Navalsinh Sarviya is examined at exhibit-44. He has deposed that upon receiving instructions from the Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, he initiated necessary proceedings and in presence of panchas, he had recovered one foreign made pistol and seven cartridges from the accused and sealed the muddamal recovered and after making necessary panchnama he made complaint against the accused under the Arms Act and for lodging the said complaint, he had sent the accused and recovered muddamal to Jamnagar City-“A” Division Police Station. He has further deposed that he made further investigation in the matter and as he was on leave, further investigation was handed over to Batuksinh, ASI LCB, Jamnagar. Batuksinh Ghelubha ASI is examined at exhibit-52. He has deposed that as M.N. Sarviya, Police Inspector, LCB, Jamnagar proceeded on leave, further investigation was handed over to him. He made further investigation and filed charge-sheet. Rohitbhai Kaniyalal Pathak, District Collector, Jamnagar is examined at exhibit-37 and sanctioned letter is produced at exhibit-48. Rest of all witnesses are police officials involved in the investigation and they have supported the case of prosecution. 12. On going through the aforesaid evidences, it is noticed that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and the case of the prosecution hinges on the evidences of the police officials. However, one disturbing feature is emerging out from the evidence available on record. 12. On going through the aforesaid evidences, it is noticed that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and the case of the prosecution hinges on the evidences of the police officials. However, one disturbing feature is emerging out from the evidence available on record. There is no doubt that the case was registered by M.N. Sarviya, Police Inspector, LCB, Jamnagar, upon instructions received from the Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar and it is fully established from the statement of other witnesses as well as from the statement of complainant-M.N. Sarviya himself that, he had made investigation in the matter and as he proceeded on leave, further investigation was handed over to Batuksinh Ghelubha, ASI, LCB, Jamnagar, who is well below the rank of the complainant. Batuksinh Ghelubha, ASI made further investigation in the matter and filed chargesheet. This course of action goes against the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence and fair investigation. The credibility of the case of prosecution becomes suspicious on this count only. In the present facts of the case, the status of investigating officer could not be placed on any pedestal higher than that of a complainant and the complainant himself cannot be the sole agency of investigation. There should be no occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. The said view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1976 SC 985 , followed by this Court in the case of Kanubhai Kantibhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1998 (1) GLH 924 . Therefore, in this case, the prosecution case suffers from the aforesaid basic infirmity which itself is sufficient to vitiate the whole investigation and accordingly the whole proceedings based on such investigation deserves to be quashed and set aside. Moreover, taking into consideration aforesaid nature of evidence, wherein no independent witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and the case of the prosecution hinges on the evidences of the police officials only, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court calls for no interference by this Court. 13. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 14. 13. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 14. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 15. Under the circumstances, it appears that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against him which calls for no interference by this Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused from the charges leveled against him. This Court find that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Accordingly, present appeal is devoid of any merits and requires dismissal. 16. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Records and Proceedings to be sent back to the learned Trial Court, forthwith. Bail bond and bail, if any, stands cancelled.