ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant seeks to overturn the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRA-S-2446-SB-2012 (O&M) dated 03.07.2023 whereby the conviction rendered against him under Section 25 of the Arms Act was confirmed. Though the appellant was also charged under Section 307 of the IPC, he was acquitted by the Trial Court itself. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there were two confessional statements which were recorded from the appellant. In pursuance to the first statement, he was taken to Meerut on 25.10.2010. Having not found the weapon, in pursuance to the second statement, a recovery was made at Hayatpur, Gurgaon-10 km away from the police station on 28.10.2010. The recovery witnesses in both the cases were the same. There is a clear discrepancy in the testimonies of the recovery witnesses namely PW-3 and PW-13. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the FSL report substantiates the case of the prosecution as there is a co-relation between the empty cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence and the weapon available as per the report. The weapon was also found to be in a working condition. 5. In the case on hand, the appellant was rightly acquitted as all the eye-witnesses turned hostile. The only issue for consideration before us is on the charge proved followed by conviction of sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Recovery under those circumstances seems to be of great importance. 6. It is strange to find that though an attempt was made to recover the weapon on two occasions, of which the second one was the actual recovery, the very same witnesses have been taken to sign as recovery witnesses despite the availability of the others witnesses as disposed by PW-13. There is a clear discrepancy in the evidence deposed by PW-3 and PW-13. PW-3 has stated that the room of the tube-well was closed but not locked, while PW-13 has stated that there was no door at all for the said room. PW-3 once again has stated that there was nobody present and PW-13 has stated that there were five persons present. The report of the Ballistics Officer being the view of the expert, cannot be given due credence especially when the offence under Section 307 of the IPC has not been proved. 7. PW-3 once again has stated that there was nobody present and PW-13 has stated that there were five persons present. The report of the Ballistics Officer being the view of the expert, cannot be given due credence especially when the offence under Section 307 of the IPC has not been proved. 7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. 8. The appeal stands allowed. 9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.