JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. The applicants seek to challenge the order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) District Korba in Criminal Appeal No. 8/2014 whereby it has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, in Criminal Case No. 1266/2013 by which it has convicted and sentenced the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced the applicants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further 2 months simple imprisonment. 2. Since all the above revision petitions arise of the same order, they are being considered and decided together. 3. The prosecution case, in brief is that Yadumani Sidar, Police Inspector, was on patrolling duty on 07.10.2013. He received an information through the informant that some persons in a vehicle Safari which was not having the registration plate, had entered Korba city and their activities were suspicious. Upon receipt of such information, they checked the vehicles near Sunaliya by-pass canal road. When the said vehicle reached the spot, they found three persons sitting in the same who identified themselves as Kamal Agrawal, Sanjay Thakur and Mohammad Shahid @ Sajid. Mohammad Shahid was driving the vehicle. From the accused-Kamal Agrawal, the police seized one pistol of 7.65 mm alongwith 5 live rounds, one mobile, from accused-Mohammad Shahid @ Sajid, one pistol of 7.65 mm and 5 live rounds, and from the accused Sanjay Thakur, 3 numbers of 315 bore live rounds and one mobile of Spice company was seized and from the dashboard of the car, one mobile phone and two live rounds of 8 mm (315 bore) was also seized. When the accused/applicants were given notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for producing the documents for possessing the said arms and ammunition and the registration papers of the vehicle, they could not produce any document. Accordingly, after seizing the said arms ammunition, they were arrested. On the spot itself, according to the statement given by the witnesses, Dehatinalishi No. 0/13 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered and on the basis of the said Dehatinalishi, Crime No. 479/2013 for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered at Police Station, City Kotwali, Korba. 4. On the spot itself, according to the statement given by the witnesses, Dehatinalishi No. 0/13 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered and on the basis of the said Dehatinalishi, Crime No. 479/2013 for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered at Police Station, City Kotwali, Korba. 4. The police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. The learned trial Court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, after hearing learned counsel for parties, convicted the applicants as aforesaid vide its order dated 28.02.2014. The said order was challenged by the applicants before the learned lower appellate Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Korba, District Korba, which also stood dismissed vide judgment dated 02.09.2014. 5. Mr. Y.C.Sharma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Ajay Chandra and Mr. Hariom Rai, learned counsel for the applicant {in Cr.R. No.646/2014) submits that the orders of both the courts below are bad in law as well as facts on record as they have failed to appreciate that none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Further, the witness were not called by summons, Mukhbir Panchnama was not prepared, Talasi of Police officials not given, Rojnamcha Sanha of Ravangi was not proved, notices were not given to the accused before search, vehicle seizure was not prepared on the spot, spot map was also not prepared and seized articles were not produce for grant of permission to prosecute and other required procedure as per law. The Courts below also did not take into consider that the seal is not marked in seizure memo, seized article not send for analysis to expert officer who lodged the F.I.R. conducted an enquiry, statement of staff were not recorded and they were examined and courts below relied on their statements. Even the grant of permission to prosecute is/was not duly proved by the prosecution. Even the grant of permission to prosecute is/was not duly proved by the prosecution. In support of his case, he relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. The State of Punjab, which is in respect of ballastic report, a Single Bench judgment of the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ratan Singh v. The State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1059/1999, decided on 30.08.2022) and another judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sukhlal Banshi Lodhi & Another v. State of M.P. { 1998 (1) MPLJ 288 } which are in respect of grant of previous sanction by the Magistrate under Section 39 of the Arms Act, a Single Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, in Pappu @ Laxmi v. The State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 1999, decided on 23.06.2023). 6. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants {in Cr.R. No. 660/2014 and 776/2014} submit the learned Courts below erred in convicting the applicants. The evidence of the witnesses have not been appreciated by the Courts below as the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and there are material contradictions, omissions and improvement their statements. The defence version has also been totally ignored by the Courts below. The recovery of arms and ammunitions has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as the independent witnesses have not proved the memorandum and seizure of the articles and it has further not been proved by the witnesses that the articles were sealed or nor at the time of seizure. Mr. Shrivastava further submits that there is no iota of evidence to give finding that the pistols seized from the possession of other co-accused persons were in working condition and the armoruer has also admitted in his evidence that he has not tested the pistol by firing it. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to say that the weapon seized were in working condition, hence the conviction of the applicants for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to say that the weapon seized were in working condition, hence the conviction of the applicants for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act cannot be sustained. In support of his cases, he relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in Megha Singh v. State of Haryana { (1996) 11 SCC 709 }, a Single Bench decision of this Court in Dinesh v. State of Chhattisgarh {2018 SCC OnLine Chh 145}, Kundal Ram v. State of C.G. {2011 SCC OnLine Chh 500}, a Single Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Chirku @ Lakhanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh {2009 CJ(MP) 78}, Mahesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh {2009 (III) MPJR 246} and Khilan Singh v. State of M.P. {2009 CJ (MP) 91}. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the State/respondents would submit that the orders passed by the Courts below is well justified and a reasoned order and both the Courts have arrived at a concurrent finding which warrants no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto as well as the records of the Courts below with utmost circumspection. 9. On a specific query by this Court as to whether these applicants are having any criminal antecedents, it has been informed by learned State counsel that the applicant-Kamal Agrawal is having three antecedents relating to offences under the Indian Penal Code, one under the Arms Act and two under the preventive actions. So far as the other two accused/applicant are concerned, they are not having any criminal antecedents. 10. Exhibit P/13 is the order passed by the District Magistrate, Korba, dated 26.11.2013 wherein it has granted sanction to file charge sheet against the applicants under Section 25 of the Arms Act. According to Mr. Y.C.Sharma, this sanction is not a proper sanction as the same has been passed in a cyclostyled manner without there being any material on record. 11. Purushottam Kumar Tiwari (PW-5) is the witness who has proved the document Exhibit P/13. He states that he was working as Assistant Grade II in the Licence Department in the office of District Magistrate, Korba. He states that sanction was granted by Mr. 11. Purushottam Kumar Tiwari (PW-5) is the witness who has proved the document Exhibit P/13. He states that he was working as Assistant Grade II in the Licence Department in the office of District Magistrate, Korba. He states that sanction was granted by Mr. Rajat Kumar under Section 39 of the Arms Act for filing of the charge sheet against the applicants. However, in the cross examination, he states that neither he has not made any application before the District Magistrate for filing of the charge sheet nor he has signed any document for obtaining the receipt. He also admits that for obtaining sanction, neither the cartridges or revolver was produced before him nor any mobile was produced before him. He further admits that neither the seized pistol and cartridges were produced in the office of the Collector nor there is any mention with regard to the same in that office. This witness further admits that the said sanction was granted merely on the basis of seizure documents and letter received from the office of the Superintendent of Police. Even the Investigating Officer has not taken any statement from him. No articles were examined in their office. 12. The two important prosecution witnesses namely Mohammad Ameen (PW-1) and Shailendra Namedev (PW-2) have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. They are the witnesses of seizure of arms and cartridges. When the seizure itself has been denied by them in clear and categorical terms, nothing further remains for consideration. However, this Court deems appropriate to delve into other issues involved in these revision petitions. 13. Here, in the instant case, the FIR was lodged by PW-6, Yadumani Sidar who has conducted the investigation. For impartial and fair investigation, the investigation should have been done by some other officer except the person at whose instance the FIR is lodged. 14. In Megha Singh (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under: “4. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that there is discrepancy in the depositions of the PWs. 2 and 3 and in the absence of any independent corroboration such discrepancy does not inspire confidence about the reliability of the prosecution case. We have also noted another disturbing feature in this case. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that there is discrepancy in the depositions of the PWs. 2 and 3 and in the absence of any independent corroboration such discrepancy does not inspire confidence about the reliability of the prosecution case. We have also noted another disturbing feature in this case. PW-3, Siri Chand, head Constable arrested the accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were recovered from the accused. It was on his complaint a formal first information report was lodged and the case was initiated. He being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case. But it appears to us that he was not only the complainant in the case but he carried on with the investigation and examined witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation.” 15. The armourer Angdhwaj Rathore (PW-3) has also, in his cross examination, stated that he had not tested the seized pistol by firing from it. Further, while sealing the seized rounds, no signature of the witnesses were obtained. He was not able to inform the Court as to the make of the pistol nor the rounds. 16. Even there are material discrepancies in the statement of the Investigating Officer, Yadumani Sidar (PW-6). He could not inform the Court as to when the secret information was received by him and whether it was mentioned in the Rojnnamcha Sanha. Further, there was no explanation with regard to the vehicle in which the said Investigating Officer went for his patrolling duty. He also admits that neither he was searched by the accused persons on the spot neither any panchnama of the vehicle was prepared on the spot. He has further not given any notice to the accused under Section 160 Cr.P.C. This witness further admitted that there was no seal affixed on the seizure memorandum Exhibit P/1, P/2 and P/3 which are in respect of seizure of cartridges, pistol and mobile phones from the accused/applicants. Thus, this conduct of the Investigation Officer also makes the entire search and seizure doubtful. 17. Thus, this conduct of the Investigation Officer also makes the entire search and seizure doubtful. 17. With regard to previous sanction by Magistrate under Section 39 of the Arms Act, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicants on a Single Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ratan Singh (supra), which reads as under: “18. In this context I may profitably refer to the decision in the case of Satyanarayan Patidar v. State of M.P. reported in 1980 JLJ 367 wherein it has been held as under: “Mere filing of a document alongwith other papers at the time of police report was submitted, cannot be said to be a proper compliance of giving evidence to prove the requirement of Section 39 of the Arms Act.” 18. From the statement of PW/5, it can safely be held that the sanctity and sanction for prosecution was granted without seeing the firearms and resultantly, there was failure of application of mind for grant of sanction. Section 39 of the Arms Act provides that previous sanction of the District Magistrate is necessary for prosecution against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 of the Arms Act. Section 3 provides for licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition. Thus, unless there is a previous sanction of the District Magistrate, a person cannot be prosecuted in respect of any offence under Section 3. Section 25 provides for an offence relating to possession or carrying any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 3. Sanction is not a mere formality. It has to be proved that it was granted by the authority after applying his mind. It must be shown that the firearm or weapon with respect to which sanction was prayed was actually taken to the authority concerned and after looking to it the relevant papers, understanding and applying his mind, sanction was granted. In this case, the sanction granted appears to be a mere formality and without application of mind. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the facts, circumstances of this case and the evidence of the witnesses in its true perspective. 20. 19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the facts, circumstances of this case and the evidence of the witnesses in its true perspective. 20. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, dated 28.02.2014 and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba, vide judgment dated 02.09.2014 are set aside. The applicants are acquitted of the charges. 21. Resultantly, all these revision petitions are allowed. 22. The applicants are stated to be on bail. They need not surrender. However, their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and it shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 23. Registry is directed to transmit the lower court records along with a certified copy of this order to the court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.