JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since all these appeals arise out of same impugned judgment, as such all were heard together and decided by this common judgment. 3. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 23.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in S.T. No.43/2018 arising out of Kurdeg P.S. Case. No. 21/17 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 179/17; whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A)/35, 26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1) (2) of C.L.A. Act and the appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years each along with fine of Rs.10,000/-each and in case of default, further R.I. of six months each for the offence under Section 25(1-A)/35 of Arms Act and R.I. for a period of five years each along with fine of Rs.10,000/-each and in case of default, further R.I. of six months each for the offence under Section 26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and further sentenced to undergo R.I. of six months for the offence under Section 17 (1) of C.L.A. Act and R.I. of two years for the offence under Section 17(2) of C.L.A. Act. It was further ordered that all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that S.I. Sushil Kumar, Officer-in-charge Kurdeg Police Station recorded his self statement on 16.04.17 at 21:30 hours behind Kurdeg Bus Stand, in-front of Public Toilet inside lane. In his statement S.I. Sushil Kumar stated that he along with A.S.I. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Reserved Guard, Havildar-Sadanand Singh, trainee Havildar-Awadesh Ram, Police Constable-432 Nawal Kishore Oraon, Police Constable-291 Ajay Kumar, Police Constable-815 Kunal Kant Yadav had proceeded for evening patrolling on 16.06.17 at about 19:00 hours. While patrolling, they went to patrol village-Ghaghmunda, Dalki, Parkala via Jhirakmunda, Durga Mandir, then he received secret information that in-front of Public Toilet behind Kurdeg Bus Stand few people have assembled on two motorcycles and their activity appears to be suspicious. On this information he proceeded. When he reached public toilet behind the Kurdeg Bus Stand and lighted his torch, he saw few people were pasting pamphlets on the wall of public toilet, who became scared and started to flee after seeing the torch light. On this information he proceeded. When he reached public toilet behind the Kurdeg Bus Stand and lighted his torch, he saw few people were pasting pamphlets on the wall of public toilet, who became scared and started to flee after seeing the torch light. They were chased and three persons were caught, rest two persons escaped by taking benefit of night and bush. The persons who were caught, one by one they disclosed their names as Anand Soreng, Bipin Lakra and Mukesh Gowala. When they were inquired about the persons, who escaped from the place of occurrence, they disclosed their names as Kapil Pradhan and Tarsious Topno @ Suiya Munda. In presence of independent witnesses, namely, Anand Prasad Gupta and Ashok Bhuihar, apprehended accused persons were searched one by one. While search of Anand Soreng, one country made semi automatic pistol of 7.62 bore was recovered from left side of his waist with two 9 mm prohibited cartridge with magazine, on the bottom of the prohibited cartridge K.F. 9 mm was found written, five white colour chart papers was recovered in which PLFI was written in red colour ink along with anti government slogan, out of which two was recovered in pasted condition from wall of public toilet, three pamphlets was recovered from possession of accused Bipin Lakra, one Hero Honda Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing Reg. No. JH 20C-4078 and one Apache motorcycle bearing Reg. No. JH 20C-9636 were seized, one Lava company mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 91152055127262 was recovered from possession of accused Bipin Lakra, one Samsung Mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 359712052639900 with Airtel SIM was recovered from possession of accused Anand Soreng. Arrested persons failed to produce any licence and paper with regard to possession of illegal country made pistol, pamphlets and other articles. Accordingly, in presence of independent witnesses; seizure list was prepared and copy of seizure list was supplied to the witnesses as well as accused persons and accused persons were arrested from spot. On the basis of the aforesaid self-statement of the Officer In-charge of Kurdeg Police Station, the present F.I.R. was registered on 16.04.2017, for committing offence under Section 387/34 of I.P.C. and Sections 16, 18, 20, 38, 39 of U.A.P. Act and Sections 25 (1-b)A/26 (ii)/35 of Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act was registered and investigation was taken up by Dy. S.P. head quarter namely Pradeep Oraon against five named accused persons. 5. During investigation, investigating officer found sufficient evidence against accused persons namely Bipin Lakra, Tarsious Topn? @ Suiya Munda, Mukesh Gwala, Anand Soreng and Kapil Pradhan for the offence under Section 387/34 of IPC, Section 25 (1-B)A/26(2)/35 of Arms Act, Section 17(i) (ii) of C.L.A. Act and Sections 16,18, 20, 38, 39 of U.A.P. Act, accordingly he submitted charge-sheet vide charge-sheet No. 26 of 2017 dated 13.08.2017 before the Court of learned C.J.M., Simdega. Consequently, vide order dated 16.08.2017 cognizance was taken against accused persons under Section 387/34 of I.P.C., Section 25(1-B)A/26(2)/35 of Arms Act and Section 17 (i) (ii) of C.L.A. Act by keeping investigation on for obtaining prosecution sanction from the Government of Jharkhand under Sections 16, 18, 20, 38, 39 of U.A.P. Act and the case record was transferred to the Court of the then S.D.J.M., Simdega. The accused persons maintained not guilty and claimed to be tried. Finally, after trial the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 25(1-A)/35, 26(2)/35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1) (2) of C.L.A. Act 6. Learned counsels for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 113/2020 and Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 129/2020 have submitted that no recovery of arms has been made from the conscious possession of these appellants and the recovery which has been made from the co-accused cannot be used against these appellants in view of the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove that these appellants were having full knowledge about the arms which has been seized from the co-accused. As such, Section 35 and Section 17 will not be applicable in the case of the appellants. 7. Learned counsels for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 187/2020 and Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 141/2020 have submitted that these appellants were not apprehended on the spot and their names surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused and after search of their premises, during investigation, posters were found from their possession. However, keeping posters will not come under the purview of Section 35 as well as Section 17 of C.L.A. Act. 8. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer of the appellants and submits that there is no error whatsoever in the impugned judgment and as such no interference is required by this Court. 9. However, keeping posters will not come under the purview of Section 35 as well as Section 17 of C.L.A. Act. 8. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer of the appellants and submits that there is no error whatsoever in the impugned judgment and as such no interference is required by this Court. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the lower court record, it appears that all the four appellants have been convicted for having joint control and occupation of prohibited arms and ammunitions and being member of an unlawful organisation and assisting and managing the operation of the said unlawful organisation and to bring home the charges, prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants have contended that due to non-examination of the independent witnesses to prove the search and seizure list makes the case of prosecution doubtful. However, now the law is well-settled that the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and they should not be distrusted without good cause. After going through the deposition of prosecution witnesses, it appears that there are vital contradictions among them as P.W. 3 in para 2 of his cross-examination has deposed that around 30 to 40 posters were found from the possession of appellants; whereas P.W. 2 in para 1 of his examination-in-chief has deposed that 3 posters were found from the pocket of shirt worn by Bipin Lakra (appellant in Cr. Appeal 129/2020). Further, P.W. 4 in para 1 of his examination-in-chief has deposed that poster was found from the possession of Anand and P.W. 5 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that posters were found from the pocket of pant worn by Bipin Lakra. Thereby, the prosecution witnesses regarding the seizure of posters have contradicted not only in the number of posters seized but also from whom it was seized as such they cannot be relied upon. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 has held that the discrepancies in the evidence of eye witnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 has held that the discrepancies in the evidence of eye witnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12. It further transpires that no recovery of arms has been made from the conscious possession of these appellants namely Mukesh Gowla, Bipin Lakra, Kapil Pradhan and Tarsious Topno and the recovery which has been made from the co-accused namely Anand Soreng cannot be used against the appellants namely Mukesh Gowla, Bipin Lakra, Kapil Pradhan and Tarsious Topno in view of the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove that these appellants were having full knowledge about the arms which has been seized from the co-accused. Learned Trial court has placed its reliance on the confessional statement of the appellants before police to come to a conclusion that they were aware of the existence of the arms and ammunition liable for the offence which has no value under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and no other evidence was brought on record by the prosecution to prove that the present appellants were in joint control of the arm and ammunition and that they were aware of the existence of the arms and ammunitions. Hence, the conviction under section 25(1-A)/35, 26(2)/35 is perverse and cannot sustain. It will be profitable here to refer to the case of Gunwant Lal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 194 , wherein the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:— “The possession of a firearm under the Arms Act in our view must have, firstly the element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession in the person charged with such offence and secondly where he has not the actual physical possession, he has none-the-less a power or control over that weapon so that his possession thereon continues despite physical possession being in someone else. If this were not so, then an owner of a house who leaves an unlicensed gun in that house but is not present when it was recovered by the police can plead that he was not in possession of it even though he had himself consciously kept it there when he went out. Similarly, if he goes out of the house during the day and in the meantime someone conceals a pistol in his house and during his absence, the police arrives and discovers the pistol he cannot be charged with the offence unless it can be shown that he had knowledge of the weapon being placed in his house. And yet again, if a gun or firearm is given to his servant in the house to clean it, though the physical possession is with him nonetheless possession of, it will be that of the owner. The concept of possession is not easy to comprehend as writers of (sic) have had occasions to point out. In some cases under Section 19(1)(f) of the Arms Act, 1878 it has been held that the word “possession” means exclusive possession and the word “control” means effective control but this does, not solve the problem. As we said earlier, the first precondition for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) is the element of intention, consciousness or knowledge with which a person possessed the firearm before it can be said to constitute an offence and secondly that possession need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the gun, while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power and control.” Further, in the case of Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI Bombay (II), (1994) 3 Crimes 344 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:— “20. The meaning of the first ingredient of ‘possession’ of any such arms etc. is not disputed. Even though the word ‘possession’ is not preceded by any adjective like ‘knowingly’, yet it is common ground that in the context the word ‘possession’ must mean possession with the requisite mental element, that is, conscious possession and not mere custody without the awareness of the nature of such possession. There is a mental element in the concept of possession. Accordingly, the ingredient of ‘possession’ in Section 5 of the TADA Act means conscious possession. There is a mental element in the concept of possession. Accordingly, the ingredient of ‘possession’ in Section 5 of the TADA Act means conscious possession. This is how the Ingredient of possession In similar context of a statutory offence importing strict liability on account of mere possession of an unauthorized substance has been understood.” 13. With regard to appellants in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No 187/2020 and Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 141/2020 it appears that these appellants were not apprehended on the spot and their name surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused and during the course of investigation on search being made in the house of Tarsious Topno @ Suiya Munda on the basis of his confessional statement two PLFI pamphlets were discovered. The issue regarding possession of extremist literature has been considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vernon vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reportable in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 885, wherein it has been held that mere possession of literature, even if the content thereof inspires or propagates violence by itself cannot constitute any of the offences within Chapter IV and VI of the UAP Act. Taking into consideration the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court and after perusing Section 17 of C.L.A. Act, it appears that the wordings of section 17 of C.L.A. Act, 1908 does nowhere makes the mere possession of extremist literature to be punishable unless the prosecution proves that the perpetrators were members of the unlawful association or taking part in meeting of such association or receives, solicits, contributes any contribution for the purpose of association or in any way assist in operation, management or promotion of such meeting. For brevity section 17 of CLA Act is quoted herein below:- "17. Penalties.—(1) Whoever is a member of an unlawful association, or takes part in meetings of any such association, or contributes or receives or solicits any contribution for the purpose of any such association, or in any way assists the operations of any such association, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. (2) Whoever manages or assists in the management of an unlawful association, or promotes, or assists in promoting a meeting of any such association, or of any members thereof as such members, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." 14. Learned Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that mere possession of two posters from the possession of appellants will not establish the guilt as the prosecution has failed to establish that all the four appellants were members of the unlawful association or taking part in meeting of such association or receives, solicits, contributes any contribution for the purpose of association or in any way assist in operation, management or promotion of such meeting as such conviction under Section 17 (1)& (2) cannot sustain. 15. Taking into consideration the contradictory statement of the prosecution witnesses regarding the seizure coupled with the non-examination of independent witnesses, the non-recovery of arms from the conscious possession of the present appellants and the failure of the prosecution to bring any evidence on record to prove that the appellants are members of unlawful association or in any way assisting in operation or management of such association and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the conviction under section 25(1-A)/35,26(2)/35 of Arms Act and section 17(1) & (2) of C.L.A. Act, is hereby, set aside. 16. Having regard to the aforesaid observations and discussions, all these criminal appeal stands allowed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 23.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Simdega in S.T. No.43/2018 arising out of Kurdeg P.S. Case. No. 21/17 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 179/17, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 17. Accordingly, the appellants shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. 18. Let a copy of this order and the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.