ORDER : 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2012, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo of RI for 1 year and pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of three months. 2. Facts of the case are that on a secret information received on 17.8.2009 that the applicant, with an intention to sell Katta and cartridges, was roaming around his shop, the Police conducted a raid and caught the applicant and from the left side of his waist, one Katta (country made pistol), which was fixed to his belt, was recovered, and from his pocket, two cartridges were recovered. On enquiry, it was found that the applicant was not having valid license nor he was having any other documents in this regard. The applicant was arrested and Katta and the cartridges were seized vide Seizure Memo - Ex-P/1 and a spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/4. 3. The applicant abjured his guilt and took the plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents to bring home the offence. 5. Upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, District Kabirdham (CG) vide judgment dated 26.3.2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 629/2009 convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of three months. 6. In appeal preferred by the applicant, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (CG) vide order dated 26.3.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2012 affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned JMFC and dismissed the appeal, against which, the applicant filed the instant criminal revision. 7. 6. In appeal preferred by the applicant, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (CG) vide order dated 26.3.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2012 affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned JMFC and dismissed the appeal, against which, the applicant filed the instant criminal revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment and sentence passed by the Courts below are bad in law as there are several infirmities in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and further, even the material seizure witnesses have given contradictory statements. He submits that on the seized articles, no seal was affixed at the spot and even during the trial, the same was not placed before the Court below, therefore, the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Courts in the matters of Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1998) 8 SCC 525 and Sahib Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 11 SCC 685 . In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicant prays to allow the revision and acquit the applicant. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned judgment and records of the Courts below with utmost circumspection. 10. The material seizure witness - PW-1 Ravi Das has categorically stated that he has not put the signature on the Seizure Memo- Ex.P/1 and other seizure witness Dinesh (PW-4) has completely turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. In the seizure memo, no seal has been affixed though the articles were seized from the spot and also, the same were also not produced during the trial. Further, the aforesaid articles were seized on 17.8.2009 and the same were sent to the Armourer - Navin Kumar Yadav, Head Constable (PW-2), who examined it on 14.9.2009, however, the prosecution failed to explain as to where the articles were kept during such intervening period. 11. In the matter of Jasbir Singh (supra), the following was held in Para 3: “3. 11. In the matter of Jasbir Singh (supra), the following was held in Para 3: “3. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution evidence itself shows that the pistol and the cartridges alleged to have been recovered from the appellant did not have any number or some distinctive mark on them and after their seizure by the police they were not sealed. Thus the identity of the weapon and the cartridges seized and the weapon and cartridges produced before the Court was not established by the prosecution. Having gone through the evidence, we find that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is correct and, therefore, deserves to be accepted. The pistol and the cartridges did not have any mark or any number on them and after seizing the same the police had not thought it fit to wrap them and apply a seal over them. No explanation in that behalf was given by the prosecution witnesses. This aspect was not considered by the trial court. As the identity of the incriminating articles has not been established by the prosecution, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant both under Section 5 of the TADA Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act and acquit him of all the charges levelled against him.” 12. Further, in the matter of Sahib Singh (supra), the following was held in Para 6: “6. Having gone through the record we find much substance in each of the above contentions. Before conducting a search the police officer concerned is required to call upon some independent and respectable people of the locality to witness the search. In a given case it may so happen that no such person is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a party to such search. It may also be that after joining the search, such persons later on turn hostile. In a given case it may so happen that no such person is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a party to such search. It may also be that after joining the search, such persons later on turn hostile. In any of these eventualities the evidence of the police officers who conducted the search cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that no independent and respectable witness was examined to prove the search but if it is found - as in the present case - that no attempt was made even by the police officer concerned to join with him some persons of the locality who were admittedly available to witness the recovery, it would affect the weight of evidence of the police officer, though not its admissibility. We next find from the record that the arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from the appellant and seized were not packeted and sealed. In Amarjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp. 3 SCC 217 this Court has observed that non-sealing of the revolver at the spot is a serious infirmity because the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out. From the record we further find that there is no evidence to indicate with whom the revolver was after its seizure by PW-3 till it was sent to the Arms Expert for testing through Head Constable Baita Singh. This missing link also weakens the prosecution case. For all these infirmities we are of the view, that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.” 13. Revering back to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid principles, it is quite vivid that non-sealing of the fire arm i.e. country made pistol and other articles at the spot is a serious infirmity on the part of the prosecution. Moreover, in the present case, both the seizure witnesses have given contradictory statements and one of the witnesses has completely turned hostile. In view of the aforesaid background, the identity of the incriminating article was not established by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by both the Courts below. 14. In view of the aforesaid background, the identity of the incriminating article was not established by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by both the Courts below. 14. For the foregoing, the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and call for interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to prevent the miscarriage of justice. 15. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant under Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act are set-aside and he is acquitted of the said charge by giving him the benefit of doubt. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/applicant at the time of furnishing bail also stands discharged. 16. A copy of the order along with the record of the Court below be sent to the concerned Court for necessary compliance.