JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the Parties. 2. The petitioners have filed this application against the judgement dated 20.07.2015, passed by Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2009, whereby and wherein, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro), dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2009 passed by Sri Rajesh Srivastava, learned J.M.F.C., Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro) in connection with G. R. No. 66/2007, arising out of Chandrapura P. S. Case No. 06/2007, holding the petitioners guilty of offence under Sections 25 (1-B)a/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act and thereby sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each for the aforesaid offences, they were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- under each sections and in default of payment of fine they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Learned lawyer appearing for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution has not produced the original copy of the sanction report for trial of the petitioners. It was submitted that carbon copy of the sanction order was produced in the court which was marked as ‘x’ for identification. It was further submitted that this Carbon Copy was proved by Hawaldar Ramanand Prasad P.W.9. 4. Learned A.P.P. has conceded the fact that the original sanction order has not been formally brought on the record. 5. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the informant Amod Narayan Singh, alleging therein that on 24.01.2007 at about 04:20 p.m., the petitioners were apprehended near Chandrapura-Phusro road and on search a loaded country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of petitioner no. 1 and two live cartridges each were recovered from the possession of petitioner nos.2 and 3. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the record, both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners. 7. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. On the basis of the evidence available on the record, both the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court have come to a concurrent finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners. 7. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the photocopy of the sanction order has been marked as ‘x’ for identification on 13.02.2006, this document was produced in the court by Hawaldar Ramanand Prasad, who in my opinion was not a competent witness to prove the sanction order. In his cross-examination he has stated that the original copy of the sanction order must be in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. 8. The prosecution has proved the photocopy of the sanction order by way of secondary evidence. Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, provides that, secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of the document in following cases: - (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it; (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74; (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in 1[India] to be given in evidence, (g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. 9. From the provision of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is evident that none of the grounds, of which the secondary evidence can be adduced as laid down in section 65 is covered by the facts of this case. Admittedly original copy of the sanction order was in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro but the same has not been brought on the record. It was “sine qua non” for the prosecution to produce the original sanction order or in the absence of which procedure as envisaged under section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 should have been followed. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts; I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the petitioners and both the learned trial court as well the learned appellate court have come to an erroneous finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners. 11. This Criminal Revision Application is allowed. 12. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.