JUDGMENT A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'), is filed by the appellant, who is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.334 of 2008, on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole (for short, 'the Sessions Judge') challenging the judgment therein, dated 07.04.2009, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, 'the ES Act'), convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The Sessions Case No.334 of 2008 arises out of the committal order, dated 04.08.2008, by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur (for short, 'the learned Magistrate') in PRC No.52 of 2008 under Section 209 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there is a prima-facie case against the sole accused for the offence under Section 5 of the ES Act. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet averments, is as follows: On 06.06.2006 at 04:50 PM, LW.3 - P. Akkeswara Rao, along with LWs.1 and 2 - PC 1778 - K.V.Ratnam and PC 1190 - Y. Srinivasulu of Giddaluru Police Station, having received credible information about the illegal possession of explosive substance, proceeded to Giddalur - Mundlapadu road and found the accused in possession of plastic bag and accused confessed about the offence and, on verification, they found 4 gelatin sticks, seized the same and arrested the accused at 05:20 PM under the Police proceedings. The Police obtained permission from the competent Court to defuse four gelatin sticks. On 12.07.2006, ARHC 1008 R.N. Reddy, Bomb Disposal Team, Ongole defused four gelatin sticks and preserved small quantity of the substance for sending to FSL, Hyderabad. On 25.07.2006, the preserved substance liquid was sent to FSL, Hyderabad, who analyzed the same and opined that it contains Ammonium Nitrate and Nitroglycerine, main ingredients of gelatin which contains a high explosive substance and it is dangerous to human life. On 25.07.2006, the preserved substance liquid was sent to FSL, Hyderabad, who analyzed the same and opined that it contains Ammonium Nitrate and Nitroglycerine, main ingredients of gelatin which contains a high explosive substance and it is dangerous to human life. After obtaining opinion from the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and after obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused, charge sheet is filed. The learned Magistrate, Giddalur took cognizance of the case under Section 5 of the ES Act and after completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Court of Session by virtue of the aforesaid committal order. 5. On appearance of the accused before the Court below and after following the procedure under Section 228 Cr.P.C, a charge under Section 5 of the ES Act was framed, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, during the course of trial, got examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5, Exs.C1, C1(1) and C1(2) and MO.1. 7. The accused was subjected to 313 Cr.P.C examination after closure of the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and reported no defence evidence. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 5 of the ES Act, and after convicting him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. questioned him about the quantum of sentence and after hearing the accused about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him as stated above. 9. Being aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused in S.C. No.334 of 2008 filed the present Criminal Appeal. 10. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution proved before the Court below, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was found in possession of four gelatin sticks on 06.06.2006 at 05:05 PM in the manner as alleged and whether it proved the offence under Section 5 of the ES Act? 11. Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the case of the prosecution is based upon interested testimony of PWs.1 and 2 and it is not safe to convict the accused when their evidence is not supported by independent mahazar witnesses. 11. Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the case of the prosecution is based upon interested testimony of PWs.1 and 2 and it is not safe to convict the accused when their evidence is not supported by independent mahazar witnesses. The Court below failed to look into the evidence part properly and, basing on the interested testimony, convicted the accused. The learned Sessions Judge failed to see that the gelatin sticks were not produced before the Court below. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 12. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant-State, would contend that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is consistent and as mediators were not available, they could not be joined, and the learned Sessions Judge, rightly convicted the accused as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. As seen from Ex.P-1 - police proceedings, the place of seizure is located at gate of Optical Fiber Cable Station, situated at a distance of 1 KM from Giddalur on southern side of the road leading from Giddalur to Mundlapadu. Apart from this, the contents of Ex.P-1 read that the Police party, having received prior information about the possession of gelatin sticks at 04:50 PM, proceeded to the place of seizure. Now, it is clear that the place of seizure is not far away from the residential locality. Now, coming to the evidence of PW.1, his evidence in substance is that, he is the Police Constable. He along with the Sub-Inspector of Police, on 06.06.2006 at 04:30 PM, proceeded because S.I. received the information beforehand. They reached Optical Fiber Cable Station. They found the accused in front of the gate of Optical Fiber Cable Station. On seeing the Police, when he tried to skulk away, they detained him and found polythene cover which contains 4 gelatin sticks. Accused revealed his identity on questioning by SI. Accused disclosed that the polythene cover contains 4 gelatin sticks. So, they arrested the accused under the cover of Police proceedings. Then, they returned to the Police Station and the SI registered the case and took up investigation. 14. Accused revealed his identity on questioning by SI. Accused disclosed that the polythene cover contains 4 gelatin sticks. So, they arrested the accused under the cover of Police proceedings. Then, they returned to the Police Station and the SI registered the case and took up investigation. 14. PW.2, the Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed that 06.06.2006 at 04:50 PM, on receiving credible information, he along with PW.1 and another constable left the Police Station in Government jeep and reached the office of Optical Fiber Cable Station on the way to Mundlapadu village and found one person holding polythene cover. It was at main gate of Optical Fiber Cable Station. Accused perturbed and tried to abscond. They detained him. On questioning, he disclosed his identity and that cover contains four gelatin sticks. As there were no residential houses, he prepared Ex.P-1 by arresting the accused and by seizing four gelatin sticks. He scribed Ex.P-1. After returning to the station, he registered the FIR, took up investigation and examined the witnesses. He forwarded the accused for remand. On 07.06.2006, he filed a Memo under Ex.C-1 before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddalur and obtained permission for defusal of gelatin sticks. Ex.C1(1) is the endorsement on the reverse of Ex.C-1. R.N.Reddi, HCBD Team, Ongole on 12.07.2006 defused four gelatin sticks by preserving the sample in a small plastic tin, which is MO.1. It was sent to FSL, through letter of advice and the Ex.P-4 is the letter of request, letter of advice and chemical analysis report. Ex.P-5 is the sanction order under Ex.P-3, letter of disposal certificate. 15. As seen from Ex.P-1 - Police proceedings, admittedly, the place of seizure is not far away from Giddalur town. As seen from Ex.P-1, there is a whisper that nobody was coming forward to act as mediators. Now, coming to the cross-examination part of PW.1, he deposed that Government Polytechnic College, Government Hospital and S.V. Junior College are on the way to place of offence from the Police Station. The Sub-Inspector of Police informed him that they are proceeding to conduct raid. The S.I. did not ask him to secure mediators. Now coming to the cross-examination part of PW.2, from the information received at Police Station, they proceeded to the spot. The Sub-Inspector of Police informed him that they are proceeding to conduct raid. The S.I. did not ask him to secure mediators. Now coming to the cross-examination part of PW.2, from the information received at Police Station, they proceeded to the spot. He did not secure any mediators either before proceeding from their Police Station or in the way including at Mundlapadu or from any office or from Hospital including the S.V. Government Junior College, Giddalur. 16. It is to be noticed that according to the evidence of PW.2, in chief-examination, as there were no residential houses, he prepared Ex.P-1. During cross-examination, he did not speak as to why they could not secure mediators but according to the contents in Ex.P-1 - Police proceedings, as nobody was willing to come forward, the Police proceedings were drafted. When it comes to the cross-examination of PW.2, he deposed that he did not secure any mediators either before proceeding from Police Station or in the way including at Mundlapadu etc. So, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in their chief and cross-examination is inconsistent. Further, Ex.P-1 literally reads that nobody were willing to come as mediators. It means that the place of seizure is not far away from the human dwelling and the Police party made some efforts to secure mediators but neither PW.1 nor PW.2 did speak anything about the efforts made by them to secure mediators. In my considered view, the prosecution is bound to prove the genuinity of the version mentioned in the Police proceedings to secure the mediators. PW.1 did not speak anything as regards the contents in Ex.P-1 relating to non-securing of mediators. PW.2 in chief-examination has spoken a different version and took a contra version in cross-examination. When this fact is agitated before the learned Sessions Judge, he gave a finding that as the Police party were proceeding from combing operations, the question of securing mediators does not arise. This finding of fact recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is without any basis from the record. Ex.P-1 never disclosed that the Police party proceeded to the scene of offence on combing operations. On the other hand, Police party claimed to have proceeded to the place of seizure on receiving prior and specific information about possession of gelatin sticks by the accused. Ex.P-1 never disclosed that the Police party proceeded to the scene of offence on combing operations. On the other hand, Police party claimed to have proceeded to the place of seizure on receiving prior and specific information about possession of gelatin sticks by the accused. So, in my considered view, the facts and circumstances are such that though there was a chance for the Police party to secure independent witnesses, they did not secure the mediators and did not stick on to the version mentioned in Ex.P-1. So, it is not a case where the place of seizure was located in a far away place from the human dwelling. So, it creates a doubt in the mind of the Court as to the genuineness of the version mentioned in the Police proceedings that nobody was willing to act as mediators though Police made some efforts. In my considered view, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have extended the benefit of doubt to the accused in the light of the inconsistent versions in Ex.P-1 and in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 as regards non securing of mediators. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Court below is not found satisfactory and it is a fit case to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. Hence, I see reason to allow this Criminal Appeal as such the Appeal is liable to be allowed. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting-aside the judgment, dated 07.04.2009, passed in Sessions Case No.334 of 2008, by the learned Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole by acquitting the accused under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. MO.1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over. Appellant is entitled to the refund of fine amount, if any paid. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.