JUDGMENT : Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J. These appeals have been preferred against judgment dated 09-07- 2013 passed in S.T. No.76/2008 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur C.G. 2. By the impugned judgment appellants K.S. Priya alias Malti alias Shantipriya, Meena Choudhary @ Geeta, Prafull Kumar Jha, Sidharth Sharma @ Rajaram @ Motu and Prateek Jha @ Baba have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Sl. No. Conviction Sentence 1. U/s 121-(A) R/W Section 120-B of the IPC R.I. for 7 years & Fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months, 2. U/s 124-A of the IPC R.I. for 7 years & Fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months 3. U/s 8(1) of Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 R.I. for 3 years & Fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months, 4. U/s 8(2) of Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 R.I. for 2 years & Fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months, 5. U/s 8(3) of Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 R.I. for 3 years & Fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months, 6. U/s 8(5) of Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 R.I. for 5 years & Fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months, 7. U/s 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 R.I. for 7 years & Fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine R.I. for 6 months, 8. U/s 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 R.I. for 7 years & Fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months, 9 U/s 25(1)(a) of Arms Act R.I. for 3 years & Fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months, 10. U/s 3,6 (1-A) of the Indian Wireless and Telegraph Act, 1933 R.I. for 2 years & Fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months. In addition to his conviction as aforementioned appellant Sidharth Sharma @ Rajaram @ Motu has also been convicted by the impugned judgment for offence under Section 4, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced as mentioned in the table below:- Sl. In addition to his conviction as aforementioned appellant Sidharth Sharma @ Rajaram @ Motu has also been convicted by the impugned judgment for offence under Section 4, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced as mentioned in the table below:- Sl. No. Conviction Sentence 1. U/s 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 R.I. for 7 years & Fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months, 2. U/s 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 R.I. for 5 years & Fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months, By the impugned judgment appellants Naresh Kumar Khubnani, Ramesh Kumar Khubnani and Dayaram Sahu have been convicted only under Section 8(3) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and they have been sentenced as mentioned below:- Sl. No. Conviction Sentence 1. U/s 8(3) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 R.I. for 3 years & Fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is this, that on 21-01-2008 the police control room Raipur informed P.S. D.D. Nagar on telephone that one unknown male and female have left some bags on the spot. The SHO, A.A. Ansari (PW-41) along with staff arrived on the spot, with bomb disposal squad. He found, that in front of Laxmi Kirana Stores, in total 7 bags were lying along with one white polythene bag. He was informed by witness Tikamchand Jain (PW-2) and others that at about 07:15 p.m. a male and female had come in a Santro car bearing registration No. CG 04D 4628 and had disembarked there. The lady had also made some enquiry from Tikamchand Jain (PW-2) and made some purchase from his kirana shop. I.H. Khan (PW-45), from bomb disposal squad arrived with his team and on examining the bags with sniffer dogs, no explosive substance was found in the bags. The lady had also made some enquiry from Tikamchand Jain (PW-2) and made some purchase from his kirana shop. I.H. Khan (PW-45), from bomb disposal squad arrived with his team and on examining the bags with sniffer dogs, no explosive substance was found in the bags. The bags were opened then it was found that they contained 6 numbers of country-made firearm with butt, 20 numbers of country-made firearm without butt, 22 numbers of country-made firearm with iron butts along with 28 other firearms, 5 numbers of country-made firearm with butt, barrels of country-made firearm in 25 numbers and other iron barrels total 81 in numbers, 22 numbers of wireless sets of Kenwood company, charger in 22 numbers, 22 numbers of Ariel, 22 numbers of waist clips and one ladies hand bag containing two hand-written letters and the date of writing letter was 14-01-2008. The contents of the letters disclosed that the illegal arms were collected for the purposes of naxal moment and the same was being supplied to them and promise were made for funding of the same moment. The letter was addressed to a Naxal commander. One driving license in the name of K.S. Priya was also present in the collection. English newspaper, Times of India dated 22-11-2007, a book which was printed by Central Military Commission of India for communist party (maoist), shawls, sweaters, a book titled as Premchand Ki Sarvashresth Kahaniya, and a bunch of keys were found. Seizure of these articles were made from the spot and FIR Ex.-P/72 was lodged. A. A. Ansari (PW-41) wrote a letter Ex.-P/73 to S.P. Raipur seeking permission to investigate the offences under the C.G. Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam against which he received permission vide Ex.-P/74 from S.P. Raipur. A team for investigation was constituted headed by I. H. Khan (PW-45). 4. While investigating the case accused Meena Choudhari was apprehended, who gave statement on memorandum vide Ex.-P/10 making this admission that she is engaged with CPI Maoist since 8 to 10 years and has responsibility of executing works in urban area. She also named co-accused persons, Malati, Prafull Jha, Prateek Jha, Ramesh and Hanumant, Prashant and others stating that they also help to execute the works for naxal groups. She also named co-accused persons, Malati, Prafull Jha, Prateek Jha, Ramesh and Hanumant, Prashant and others stating that they also help to execute the works for naxal groups. At the instance of appellant Meena Choudhari some papers, letters, diary, hospital admission receipt, one live cartridge of pistol, cash Rs.6400/-, one radio, two Nokia mobiles were seized vide Ex.-P/11. 5. Then in the investigation accused/appellant K.S. Priya @ Malati @ Shantipriya was arrested and she gave statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.-P/12 narrating her connection with the Peoples War Group and making this admission, that she was the person who had left the collection of firearms etc. on the spot, on the date the seizure was made. 6. Appellant Prateek Jha was also arrested during the investigation and at his instance one country-made firearm, one wireless set of Kenwood company, charger connected with ariel, news bulletin of banned association Indian Communist Party (Male), press note of Gudsa Usendi, the spokesperson of the naxal group, one mobile and one laptop were seized vide Ex.-P/13 and one Santro car bearing registration No. CG 04B-4628 was seized from Chandradev Sharma vide Ex.-P/14. 7. Appellant/Accused K.S. Priya was also arrested and interrogated. She gave memorandum statement vide Ex.-P/30. She made statement that she had ordered stitching of naxal uniforms to the concerned Ramesh Khubnani and Naresh Khubnani and at her instance seizure of naxal uniforms were made vide Ex.-P/34, Ex.- P/35 from co-accused/appellant Dayaram Sahu, who has also made statement that the order of stitching of uniforms were placed by appellant K.S. Priya and her husband Vijay. At the instance of appellant Dayaram Sahu half stitched uniforms were seized from the tailoring shop of Ashok Dewangan vide Ex.-P/32. At the instance of accused K.S. Priya two bales of cloths, which were for military uniforms having mark of BSL company were seized from the possession of accused Naresh Khubnani along with 15 numbers of stitched full pants and full shirts without having stickers, one CPU of Intex company, a bill book in which it was reflected that the bills were made in the name of Sunil Choudhari were seized by the seizure memo Ex.-P/39. 8. During investigation vide Ex.-P/41 a Nokia mobile with SIM, one advance order bill in the name of one Sunil Choudhari was seized. Accused Sidharth Sharma was apprehended and interrogated who gave statement on memorandum vide Ex.-P/36. 8. During investigation vide Ex.-P/41 a Nokia mobile with SIM, one advance order bill in the name of one Sunil Choudhari was seized. Accused Sidharth Sharma was apprehended and interrogated who gave statement on memorandum vide Ex.-P/36. He made admission that he worked for maoist association and had received one Bolero jeep bearing registration No. C.G.-04H-5669 and that he has planted one land mine near jungle camp No.54. At the instance of accused/appellant Sidharth Sharma, the jeep aforementioned, naxal uniform, a Nokia mobile with SIM, one Motorola mobile with SIM, two live cartridge of SLR rifle, one TATA Safari vehicle bearing registration No.CG-04HA-8088, one Tempo Tracks vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04HA-0558 were seize vide Ex.-P/37 and Ex.- P/38. At the instance of accused Sidharth Sharma himself recovery was made from near the jungle at Pakhanjur in the area of camp No.54. of one box made of plastic and steel containing 10 kg. explosive substance along with detonator, fuse and wire 150 meters connected with electric switch and a bundle of tape, a battery of 12 volts, which were seized. 9. Later on, accused/appellant Prateek Jha was arrested and interrogated who gave memorandum statement vide Ex.-P/5, who admitted that he had received money from the naxali association and had made purchase of one car, weapons, explosive substances and wireless sets etc. At his instance seizure of one country-made firearm, one wireless set make of Kenwood company, CD bag containing 13 CDs, delivery letter of Varun Honda regarding sale of one Activa scooter were seized along with one Apta car bearing registration No.C.G.0E-2990 and one Nokia mobile with SIM were seized vide Ex.-P/3. 10. During investigation Executive Magistrate Poonam Sharma conducted the TIP of accused K.S. Priya @ Malati and accused Prateek Jha vide Ex.-P/7 and Ex.-P/8 in which they were identified by the witnesses as the persons who left the bags on spot. The other investigation procedures were conducted in which spot map were prepared. Seized CPU of computers were sent for forensic examination regarding which report was received. The firearms and ammunition were sent for examination to Armorer and reports were received against that. The report of bomb disposal squad was obtained with respect to the seized tiffin bomb. Report regarding the working condition of wireless sets were obtained from the Director, Moriya Infotech Private Limited, Bangalore. Call details of mobile phones seized were obtained from the service provider companies. The report of bomb disposal squad was obtained with respect to the seized tiffin bomb. Report regarding the working condition of wireless sets were obtained from the Director, Moriya Infotech Private Limited, Bangalore. Call details of mobile phones seized were obtained from the service provider companies. Details of driving licence of appellant K.S. Priya were obtained from RTO Raipur. On completion of the investigation, the Special Investigation Team concluded, that the appellants/accused persons were urban hands of the maoist, engaged in supply of firearms and arranging materials, cash and other useful articles for waging war against the State. On this basis the charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court. 11. Appellants K.S. Priya Alias Malti Alias Shantipriya, Meena Choudhary @ Geeta, Prafull Kumar Jha, Sidharth Sharma @ Rajaram @ Motu and Prateek Jha @ Baba were charged with offences under Section 120([[ ¼[k½ ]), 121([ ¼d½ ]), 122, 124-A of the IPC, under Section 2 [[ ¼[k½ ]] [ x] ]] Section 8(1), 2, [[ ¼[k½ ]] [ x] ]] Section 8(2), 2, [[ ¼[k½ ]] [ x] ]] Section 8(3), 2, [[ ¼[k½ ]] [ x] ]] Section 8(5) of the C.G. Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005, [Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act')] Chapter 3, (10)([ ¼d½ ]) (1, 2, 3), Chapter 4, Section 18, Chapter 4, Section 20, 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 25(1)(d) of Arms Act and Section 3, 6(1- [ , ],) of the Indian Wireless and Telegraph Act, 1933. Appellant Sidharth Sharma @ Rajaram @ Motu was also charged with offence under Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Appellants Naresh Kumar Bhubnani, Ramesh Kumar Khubnani and Dayaram Sahu were charged with offence under Sections 2([[ ¼[k½ ]), 8(3) of the C.G. Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005. The appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial. 12. The prosecution has examined 45 witnesses in all. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, all the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating evidence against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. On behalf of appellant Prateek Jha one witness was examined in defence and rest of the appellants/accused persons have not examined any defence witness on their behalf. 13. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, all the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating evidence against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. On behalf of appellant Prateek Jha one witness was examined in defence and rest of the appellants/accused persons have not examined any defence witness on their behalf. 13. On completion of the trial, the impugned judgment has been passed in which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. 14. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants in CRA No.666/1013, that no case is made out against appellants Naresh Kumar Khubnani and Ramesh Kumar Khubnani. The seizure has been though made on the basis of memorandum statement given by co-accused K.S.Priya @ Malati of clothes, are common items which are usually present in any cloth shop. The bills of green clothes that have been seized are commonly used by the person working in uniform like person of security agencies working in all the urban area. Conviction of these appellants is based only on the confessional statement by K.S. Priya @ Malati which is not admissible in law. Apart from that, there is no proof that these appellants have any connection with naxal association or groups. Therefore, conviction against these appellants for the offences concerned is bad in law. Both these appellants are entitled for acquittal. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Prabhoo Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1113 on the basis of which, it is argued that incriminating statement made by the co-accused person which does not lead to any discovery of any fact, is not admissible in evidence. 15. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Horilal and another Vs. State of M.P., 2011 SCC OnLine(Chh) 299 and it is argued that ASI. A.A. Ansari (PW-41) was not the person authorized under the Act for investigating this case and it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it is always burden on the prosecution to prove its case, before onus of proving defence case shifts upon the accused person, regarding which reliance has been placed in the judgment on Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Sawal Das Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 778 . State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 778 . It is prayed that none of the independent witnesses of seizure have supported the prosecution case. Seizure of bills etc. from these appellants is no evidence of their connection with the naxal association. The fact that the bills were issued in the name of one Sunil Choudhari, the person named Sunil Choudhari is not an accused in this case and there is no evidence that he was a naxalite in the knowledge of these appellants. Similarly, the seizure made from co-accused K.S. Priya @ Malati also did not connect these appellants with the naxalite as the business of the appellants is to take orders and do supplies accordingly, which is not an offence. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellants have not committed any offence, therefore, they are entitled for acquittal. 16. Learned counsel for appellant Dayaram Sahu (appellant in CRA No.778/2013) submits that this appellant is a tailor by profession and he has been made accused in this case only on the basis of memorandum statement given by K.S.Priya @ Malati. There is no such statement made by K.S. Priya that this appellant had knowledge that K.S. Priya @ Malati is connected with some naxlite group. The seizure of stitched uniforms that have been made from the possession of this appellant do not lead to any conclusion or connection with the Maoist and regarding the absence of any tailor marks and other marks in the uniform it is submitted that that was so because the delivery was yet to be made and the tailor marks could have been affixed before making such delivery. Independent witnesses of seizure have not supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that as per the provisions under Section 16(2) of C.G. Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam investigation could have been made only by police officer above the rank of Inspector and A.A.Ansari (PW-41) is an officer of rank of ASI that is below the rank of Inspector, therefore, this discrepancy on the part of the prosecution agency itself vitiates the trial against the appellant. Hence, it is prayed that the appellant may be acquitted of the charges. 17. Hence, it is prayed that the appellant may be acquitted of the charges. 17. On behalf of appellant Prateek Jha and appellant Prafull Jha (appellants in CRA No.840/2013 and CRA No.841/2013) submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against these appellants for the reason that independent witnesses of seizures have not supported the prosecution case. The investigation has not been done according to the provisions under Section 16(2) of the C.G. Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniayam, therefore, no connection has been established between the appellant and the banned naxal groups because of which these appellants were entitled for acquittal in this case. 18. Learned counsel for appellant K.S. Priya @ Malti @ Shantipriya and appellant Meena Choudhari (appellants in CRA No.939/2013) submits that both of these appellants have undergone whole of the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them and they have been released. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove any case against these appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the recoveries that have been made were from the third person and none of the independent witness of seizure have supported the prosecution case. Therefore, these appellants are entitled for acquittal. 19. On behalf of appellant Siddarth Sharma @ Rajaram @ Motu (appellant in CRA No.899/2013) submits that the appellant has undergone whole of the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him by the Court below and has been released from jail. It is submitted that seizure witnesses in this case were hostile, therefore, there was practically no evidence against this appellant. Hence, his conviction is bad in law. Therefore, it is prayed that he may be acquitted. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the grounds raised in the appeals and the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants in this respect. It is submitted that the prosecution has established connection of appellants Naresh Kumar Khubnani and Ramesh Kumar Khubnani with co-accused K.S. Priya, as in the data of computer seized from the shop of appellant Naresh Kumar Khubnani there was photograph of appellant K.S.Priya and there is evidence that co-accused/appellant K.S. Priya was directly connected with the naxal association. It is submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even though the independent witnesses of memorandum and seizure have not supported the prosecution case, but the investigating officers have made statement before the Court which are worthy of reliance and it is not a rule that the evidence of police officers shall always be disbelieved. It is submitted that although the initial investigation was made by the ASI A.A. Ansari (PW-41), because only he was the person available at the time when the information was received in the concerned police station and he had also proceeded to the spot to make search and seizure with the permission of S.P. as required under the Act. Provisions under Section 16(2) of the Act, therefore, cannot be regarded as mandatory, it is only recommendatory, therefore, soon after the seizure of articles from the spot a team for investigation was constituted head by the officer of rank of Deputy S.P. which further shows that the investigation has been done in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no technical ground available to the appellants to seek any relief on this behalf. It is submitted that there is no room for any interference in the impugned judgment. Hence, all the appeals may be dismissed. 21. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellants Naresh Kumar Khubnani and Ramesh Kumar Khubnani (appellants in CRA No.666/1013), submits that on the basis of evidence that has been brought by the prosecution, it raises only suspicion which cannot take place of proof. The presence of one photograph of one K.S. Priya in the data of CPU seized from appellant Naresh Kumar Khubnani by itself is not evidence to connect these appellants with the naxal association. Therefore, these appellants are entitled for acquittal. 22. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 23. Firstly the legal objection taken by the appellants is taken into consideration. After receiving the information, SHO, A.A. Ansari (PW-41) was the only person present in police Station D. D. Nagar who is officer in rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. He arrived on the spot and made seizures of the articles found which were allegedly abandoned by accused K.S.Priya and Prateek Jha. He made seizure of the articles accordingly through various seizure memos and also sought permission of Superintendent of Police Raipur which was granted vide Ex.-P/74. He arrived on the spot and made seizures of the articles found which were allegedly abandoned by accused K.S.Priya and Prateek Jha. He made seizure of the articles accordingly through various seizure memos and also sought permission of Superintendent of Police Raipur which was granted vide Ex.-P/74. Thereafter a team was constituted for investigation of the offence registered in this case headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police I.H.Khan (PW-45). As it appears that A.A.Ansari (PW-41) was in an inevitable situation having belief that the abandoned articles on the spot are connected with some commission of offence, he proceeded to the spot and till the articles were recovered from the abandoned bags, nobody had knowledge that the articles so abandoned on the spot were meant for banned maoist groups and connected with such groups. Therefore, it was for the first time it was disclosed on the spot, that A.S.I. A.A. Ansari (PW-41) had stumbled into a discovery which was connected with the offence under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam. After recovery of the articles it was duty of the A.S.I. A.A. Ansari (PW-1) to make seizure of the articles and report about the same to his superior authorities which he had done accordingly, and thus he is lodger of the FIR (Ex.-P/72) although he was granted permission by the S.P., to investigate the case, but, thereafter the special investigation team was constituted headed by the Dy. S.P. I.H.Khan (PW-45). A.S.I A.A. Ansari (PW-41) had made a statement in his deposition that he handed over the complete diary of offence registered to the Dy. S.P. I.H. Khan (PW-45) vide Ex.-P/75, which shows that he was not incharge of the further investigation in any respect and rest of the investigation procedures are being carried out by Dy. S.P. I.H. Khan (PW-45) who being an officer of rank of Dy. S.P. can be said to be a person authorized to investigate the case as per requirement of Section 16(2) of the Act. 24. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove, it has been found that A.S.I. A.A.Ansari (PW-41) had to make recovery and seizure of articles from the spot because it was unavoidable for him. S.P. can be said to be a person authorized to investigate the case as per requirement of Section 16(2) of the Act. 24. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove, it has been found that A.S.I. A.A.Ansari (PW-41) had to make recovery and seizure of articles from the spot because it was unavoidable for him. Although Section 16(2) of the Act provides that offence under this Act shall investigated by police officer not below the rank of Inspector, but in case of any irregularity committed in the investigation, no consequence is provided for it; and further the irregularity that has been done in the initial stage has been corrected as soon as it has discovered that the recoveries made were in connection with offence committed under the Act. Therefore, on this basis, I am of this view that no such irregularity has been committed in the investigation of this case and on mere irregularities on the initial stage, it cannot be said that the investigation and the trial in this case have vitiated. Therefore, this objection is without any merit. 25. A.S.I. A.A.Ansari (PW-41) has stated that on receiving information about the abandoned articles on the spot he arrived on the spot which was in front of Laxmi Kirana Store. There were 7 bags of different sizes and one polyethylene packet containing things in them. After enquiring from Tikamchand Jain (PW-2), he summoned the witnesses and also there were bystander persons in whose presence all the bags were opened and checked, which were found containing country-made firearms, wireless sets, clothes and various other articles including the driving licence of appellant K.S. Priya. Seizure of articles were made by him. Thereafter, after coming to the police station he has lodged the FIR (Ex.-P/72). His statement finds support from Prahlad Verma (PW-1) who was present on the spot during investigation, recovery and seizure of articles mentioned in Ex.-P/1. Therefore, there is no specific dispute with respect to the articles that were seized from the spot vide Ex.- P/1 and from description of the articles seized which is mentioned in the seizure memos and in the statement of witnesses, it is clear that the articles had connection with the banned moaist and other naxal groups. Hence, it can be inferred that these articles were meant for supply to same groups. 26. Hence, it can be inferred that these articles were meant for supply to same groups. 26. Appellant Prateek Jha (appellant in CRA No.840/2013) and appellant K.S. Priya (appellant No.1 in CRA 939/2013) were the persons who had left these articles on the spot and the investigation was made in this respect. Tikamchand Jain @ Tinku (PW-2) has stated, that he is proprietor of Laxmi Kirana Store. He himself saw, that on the date and time of the incident appellants Prateek Jha and K.S. Priya came in a Santro car. Appellant K.S. Priya came to his shop and made some purchase and after that both of them left 6 to 7 bags of green colour in front of his shop. He noted that the number of Santro car was CG 04D 4628. He has stated that he had identified K.S.Priya and Prateek Jha in TIP conducted vide Ex.-P/7 and Ex.-P/8. In cross-examination his statement has remained unrebutted and uncontradicted and there is no other statement made by him so as to hold that he has made false statement. 27. Rajesh Banjare (PW-3) is also a witness who has seen appellants K.S. Priya and Prateek Jha who left the bags and he has identified them in TIP. He has also remained unshaken in his crossexamination. 28. Smt. Punam Sharma (PW-42) is Executive Magistrate who had conducted the TIP, Ex.-P/7 and Ex.-P/8 and she has also confirmed the statement made by Tikamchand Jain (PW-2) and Rajesh Banjare (PW-3). 29. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established on the basis of reliable and trustworthy evidence of the witnesses discussed hereinabove, that appellants Prateek Jha and K.S. Priya were the persons who had left the articles in the spot which were meant for supply to the naxal groups. 30. Conviction against rest of the appellants is based on recoveries made at their instances, regarding which the evidence of I.O., I.H. Khan (PW-45) is relevant. He has stated that while investigating the case he interrogated Meena Chaudhary @ Geeta and she gave memorandum statement Ex.-P/10, on that basis and at her instance seizure of maoist literature, circular, some letters written in Telagu, one diary, one live cartridge of pistol, Radio, mobiles were seized from her possession vide Ex.-P/11. He has stated that while investigating the case he interrogated Meena Chaudhary @ Geeta and she gave memorandum statement Ex.-P/10, on that basis and at her instance seizure of maoist literature, circular, some letters written in Telagu, one diary, one live cartridge of pistol, Radio, mobiles were seized from her possession vide Ex.-P/11. He also interrogated appellant K.S. Priya and she gave memorandum statement vide Ex.-P/12, on that basis, seizure of one country-made firearm and one wireless set was made from appellant Prafull Jha vide Ex.-P/13 and seizure of Santro car bearing registration No.CG 04B 4628 was made from Chandradev Chandra vide Ex.-P/14. He has also apprehended and interrogated appellant Sidharth Sharma @ Rajaram @ Motu and he gave statement on memorandum vide Ex.-P/36 and at the instance of appellant Sidharth Sharma he made seizure of one Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 H 5669 in condemned condition, naxal uniforms, mobile sets with SIMS, two live cartridges of SLR rifle, one TATA Safari bearing registration No. CG 04 H A 8088 vide Ex.-P/37. Thereafter, I.H. Khan (PW-45) also apprehended and interrogated appellant Prateek Jha and on the basis of his memorandum statement Ex.-P/2, he made seizure of one car bearing registration No. CG 4E 2990, one Nokia mobile vide Ex.- P/3. At the instance of appellant Sidharth Sharma, a tiffin bomb was recovered and seized from Camp No.54 in the jungle of Pakahnjur vide Ex.-P/4. Thereafter, he also interrogated appellant Sidharth Sharma and made seizure of one unnumbered Jipsy vehical vide Ex.-P/36. Appellant Prateek Jha made statement on memorandum Ex.-P/5 in his presence, that he has kept in concealment in his room weapons, wireless sets, CD and literature pertaining to naxal moment and then at his instance vide Ex.-P/6 one country-made firearm, one wireless set, naxal literature and material, compact discs etc. were seized from his possession. He has also stated that he sent all the firearms for expert examination that were seizedby him and by A.S.I. A.A. Ansari (PW-41). His statement has remained unrebutted in his cross-examination and there is no such statement made by him so as to hold that he has contradicted any of the statement made by him in his examination-in-chief. There is no such admission made by him that he has any enmity or other reasons to falsely implicate any of the appellants/accused persons. 31. His statement has remained unrebutted in his cross-examination and there is no such statement made by him so as to hold that he has contradicted any of the statement made by him in his examination-in-chief. There is no such admission made by him that he has any enmity or other reasons to falsely implicate any of the appellants/accused persons. 31. Shrikant Dongare (PW-6) has supported the statement of I.H. Khan (PW-41) with respect to the memorandum statement of appellants Meena Chaudhari and Malati @ K.S. Priya and seizure of articles made at their instance. He has also supported the seizure of firearm made from appellant Prafull Jha, thereafter seizure of Santro car vide Ex.-P/14. He has also identified the seized articles which were displayed before him in the Court at the time of recording his deposition. In cross-examination his statement has remained unrebutted and unshaky. Therefore, the statement made by I.H. Khan (PW-45) is clearly corroborated by the statement given by this witness. 32. Other seizure witnesses, Awadh Ahmad (PW-7) has though made statement that seizure of articles were made in his presence, but he has not named the persons from whom it was made and he has not identified appellant Malati @ K.S. Priya from whom the seizure was made. Therefore, he has given partial support to the evidence of I.H. Khan (PW-45). 33. Wahabuddin (PW-8) has partially supported the procedure of seizure from appellant Malati @ K.S. Priya vide Ex.-P/23, though he was not sure that Malati was the same woman. 34. Chandradev Chandra (PW-9) is owner of the Santro car. He has stated that his car was borrowed from him by appellant Prateek Jha. 35. Kamal Gupta (PW-10) has supported the memorandum and seizure procedures and supported I.H. Khan (PW-45) with respect to the memorandum statement recorded and seizure made from appellant Sidharth Sharma and he has remained unshaken in his cross-examination. 36. He has stated that his car was borrowed from him by appellant Prateek Jha. 35. Kamal Gupta (PW-10) has supported the memorandum and seizure procedures and supported I.H. Khan (PW-45) with respect to the memorandum statement recorded and seizure made from appellant Sidharth Sharma and he has remained unshaken in his cross-examination. 36. Therefore, after closely scrutinizing the evidence of the witnesses with respect to the investigation made by I.H. Khan (PW-45) in connection with appellants Prateek Jha, Prafull Kumar Jha, K.S.Priya @ Malati and Meena Chaudhari it is found that all these persons were in possession of objectionable articles which were in shape of firearm and other stuffs along with literature and other things pertaining to naxal moment, which is enough to show, that these appellants have conspired with the naxal groups for waging war against State which is offence under Section 121A of the IPC. By supporting the naxal moment and naxal groups they have supported the cause of naxalis which excites dissatisfaction to the Government established by law and India. There is sufficient proof present that these appellants had taken part and contributed to the naxal cause by collecting material for supply to them, which is offence under Section 8(1), 8(2), 8(3) and 8(5) of Chhattisgarch Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005. Similarly the activities of these appellants are proved to be offence under Section 18 and 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. These appellants were found in possession of illegal firearms and also ammunition and thus are also responsible for commission of offence under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. Similarly, these appellants were found in illegal possession of wireless sets and thus have committed offence under Section 3, 6 (1-A) of the Indian Wireless and Telegraph Act, 1933. Therefore, after due consideration, I am of this view, that conviction recorded against appellants K.S. Priya Alias Malti Alias Shantipriya, Meena Choudhary @ Geeta (appellants in CRA No.939/2013), Prafull Kumar Jha (appellant in CRA No.841/2013), Sidharth Sharma @ Rajaram @ Motu (appellant in CRA No.899/2013) and Prateek Jha @ Baba (appellant in CRA No.840/2013) is without any infirmity and needs no interference. 37. Considered on the evidence against appellants Naresh Kumar Khubnani and Ramesh Kumar Khubnani (appellants in CRA No.666/2013) and appellant Dayaram Sahu (appellant in CRA No.778/2013) who are convicted under Section 8(1) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005. 37. Considered on the evidence against appellants Naresh Kumar Khubnani and Ramesh Kumar Khubnani (appellants in CRA No.666/2013) and appellant Dayaram Sahu (appellant in CRA No.778/2013) who are convicted under Section 8(1) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005. Basis of this conviction is this that bales of clothes meant for uniforms of security forces were found in the shop of appellants Naresh Kumar Khubnani and Ramesh Kumar khubnani and half stitched and unstitched uniforms of the same clothes were found in the tailoring shop of appellant Dayaram Sahu. According to the statement made by these appellants the orders were placed by appellant K.S. Priya @ Malti who has been convicted as associate of naxal groups. It was burden of prosecution to bring this evidence that these appellants had knowingly provided material and some assistance to the members of naxalite groups, regarding which there is no evidence made by any of the witnesses. I.H. Khan (PW-45) who has recorded the memorandum statement of Dayaram Sahu vide Ex.-P/31 has stated that appellant Dayaram Sahu has made statement only to this extent, that order for stitching uniforms were placed by appellant K.S. Priya @ Malti after supplying clothes to him and seizure of some stitched and unstitched uniforms were made vide Ex.-P/33. There is no other statement made by I.H. Khan (PW-45), apart from receiving orders and stitching clothes for appellant K.S. Priya @ Malti, that appellant Dayaram Sahu had any knowledge that appellant K.S. Priya has connected with naxalite group and he had himself any connection with naxalite group. 38. Sub-Inspector Kadir Khan (PW-39) has made seizure of bill books from Naresh Bazar which is a concern of appellant Naresh Kumar Khubnani and Ramesh Kumar Khubnani along with other articles, bales of clothes for uniforms, CPU vide Ex.-P/39 and similar articles were seized vide Ex.-P/48. He has made no further statement as to for what reasons the seizure were made and neither that any explanation was called from these appellants regarding possession of clothes, bill books and the computer CPU. Therefore, he has assigned no reason for seizure made by him from them. Apart from that, there is no such witness examined by the prosecution to make a statement that these appellants had any connection with naxal groups or their activities. Therefore, he has assigned no reason for seizure made by him from them. Apart from that, there is no such witness examined by the prosecution to make a statement that these appellants had any connection with naxal groups or their activities. The explanation given on behalf of the appellants in the argument is very reasonable that appellants Ramesh Kumar Khubnani and Naresh Kumar Khubnani are businessmen running a shop and it is their work that on demand made by any customer they make sale of the clothes from their shop or take order for sale of clothes from their shop, which is normal activity in their business unless some connection is established otherwise. Similarly, appellant Dayaram Sahu has a tailoring shop and it is normal activity to receive order for stitching of clothes and do the work accordingly. There is no evidence to show that he had any connection with the naxal groups or their activities. Only for the reason that the person who made purchase of the clothes and placed orders for stitching was a member, associate or facilitator of the naxal groups, it cannot be said that these appellants also stand in the same footing. There is no prohibition of keeping clothes for uniform for sale in the shops and also there is no prohibition for any tailoring shop to stitch uniforms as per orders placed. Therefore, conviction recorded against these appellants is based on conjectures and surmises and not based on any cogent evidence. Hence, conviction against appellants Naresh Kumar Khubnani, Remesh Kumar Khubnani and Dayaram Sahu is bad in law. 39. One evidence brought on record that CPU seized from shop of Naresh Kumar Khubnani and Ramesh Kumar Khubnani contained photograph of appellant K.S. Priya does not reflect anything to connect these appellants with naxal groups. Having photograph in their computer may be explained in various ways, it may be to identify the customer or it may be on account of some acquaintance of family relation. Apart from that no material has been found contained in the data of computer seized from these appellants to show that they are sympathizer or facilitator of the naxal groups. Therefore, on basis of this discussion made hereinabove, I am of this view that conviction recorded against these appellants is bad in law which cannot be sustained. 40. Apart from that no material has been found contained in the data of computer seized from these appellants to show that they are sympathizer or facilitator of the naxal groups. Therefore, on basis of this discussion made hereinabove, I am of this view that conviction recorded against these appellants is bad in law which cannot be sustained. 40. After due consideration on all the evidence present in the record of the trial Court and after making close scrutiny of the same and according to the conclusion drawn, CRA No.840 of 2013, CRA No.841 of 2013, CRA No.899 of 2013 and CRA No.939 of 2013 are dismissed. 41. Cra No.666 of 2013 filed by appellants Naresh Kumar Khubnani and Ramesh Kumar Khubnani and CRA No.778 of 2013 filed by appellant Dayaram Sahu are allowed. Conviction of appellants Naresh Kumar Khubnani and Ramesh Kumar Khubnani (appellants in CRA No.666 of 2013) and appellant Dayaram Sahu (appellant in CRA No.778 of 2013) under Section 8(3) of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 and sentence awarded thereunder to them are set aside. They are acquitted from the charges of aforesaid offence. These appellants are reported to be on bail, their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months as required under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.