JUDGMENT : (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this criminal revision, the petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Section 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 2916 of 2005 and T.R. No. 331 of 2009 (arising out of Barhi P.S. Case No. 254 of 2005), whereby and whereunder vide judgment dated 02.09.2009, the petitioner has been held guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. of two years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1-b)a of the Arms Act, 1959 and same punishment has also been imposed for the offence under Section 26 of the Arms Act, 1959 with default stipulation, which has been upheld and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2009 vide judgment dated 07.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh. Factual Matrix 3. As per F.I.R. (Exhibit-3), the allegation is that S.I. Naresh Prasad Sharma, Officer-in-Charge, Barhi P.S. has received a confidential information on 24.10.2005 that notorious criminals namely, Suresh Sao and Shankar Rawani along with co-accused are hiding in the house of one Bandhan Yadav (present petitioner) in Village – Tetariya, Bhandaro. The informant with the assistance of officers of nearby police station and armed forced conducted a raid in mid-night at the house of present petitioner. It is alleged that during raid, some sound of moving motorcycle was heard and the motorcyclist was apprehended, who disclosed his name as Bandhan Yadav (present petitioner). On search, a loaded pistol and cartridges were recovered from his waist and two empty cartridges of 0.315 bore was also recovered from his pocket. It is alleged that due to fear of notorious criminal Suresh Sao, no local witnesses were available for completing the formality of search and seizure, so the seizure was prepared in presence of police officers and copy thereof given to accused Bandhan Yadav and his brother Babu Lal Yadav. 4. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, altogether 08 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, which are as follows:- P.W.-1 : S.I. Naresh Prasad Sharma, who is the informant and member of raiding party. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, altogether 08 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, which are as follows:- P.W.-1 : S.I. Naresh Prasad Sharma, who is the informant and member of raiding party. P.W.-2 : Nand Kishore Shah, Constable No. 329, witness of seizure, declared hostile. P.W.-3 : Surya Tubid, Constable No. 13, witness of seizure, declared hostile. P.W.-4 : Mahendra Singh Munda, Circle Inspector, Ramgarh Circle. P.W.-5 : Pran Ranjan Kumar, Officer-in-Charge of Barkatta Police Station. P.W.-6 : Pradeep Kumar Singh, S.I. of Ichak Police Station, Hazaribagh. P.W.-7 : Nageshwar Rajak, the then S.I. of Koderma Police Station. P.W.-8 : A.S.I. Rampati Yadav, Formal witness, who have produced the seized materials of this case. Material Exhibit-I is a pistol and Material Exhibit-II is the cartridges, which were produced without sealed cover, mentioning of the case number and signature of officers. The case of accused is denial of occurrence and false implication by police only on the basis of suspicion and no firearm and cartridges were recovered from his possession. 6. The learned trial court, after evaluation of evidence, both oral as well as documentary arrived at conclusion of guilt of the petitioner and convicted and sentenced him as stated above, which has been affirmed by the learned appellate court and assailed in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court are absolutely perverse, illegal and fit to be set aside. It is case pertaining to recovery of one pistol loaded with one live cartridge and two empty cartridges in the dead of night at about 2:00 AM. The Investigating Officer of the case was also member of the raiding party. The very genesis of occurrence as alleged in the FIR is that a confidential information was received by the informant that notorious criminal Suresh Sao and Shankar Sao are staying at the house of the present petitioner, Bandhan Yadav for two days at Village – Tetariya Bhandaro. It is very surprising that none of the notorious criminals were apprehended from the house of the petitioner. Petitioner is not a notorious criminal, rather a simple villager and having no criminal antecedent. It is very surprising that none of the notorious criminals were apprehended from the house of the petitioner. Petitioner is not a notorious criminal, rather a simple villager and having no criminal antecedent. He has been roped in this case showing a pistol and empty cartridges, which were never sealed at the place of occurrence and produced before the Court as open box collected from MALKHANA of the police station. No identity has been established of the seized material, which is alleged to be recovered from the petitioner in presence of witnesses. It is surprising that witnesses of seizure, who happens to be police officer have also turned hostile and flatly denied the factum of seizure of any pistol from the possession of the petitioner. 8. The trial court as well as appellate court has ignored the above vital facts while holding the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 25(1-b)a of the Arms Act, 1959. As a matter of fact, no recovery affected from the possession of the petitioner, rather when the police failed to apprehend any of the notorious criminal from the house of the petitioner, then false case has been instituted against the petitioner, showing frustration of the police officers. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 26 of the Arms Act, 1959 is absolutely unwarranted inasmuch as, there is no ingredient of secret concealment / contravention of the provisions of Arms Act, as such, impugned judgment and sentence is fit to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner has contended that there are concurrent findings of the guilt of the petitioner for the offences charged against him. The learned trial court as well as the appellate court have very wisely, aptly apprised, scanned and evaluated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial, which has not been rebutted by the defence in any manner and conclusively proved the guilt of the present petitioner. There is no merits in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of this case and gone through the record in the light of contention raised on behalf of both sides. There is no merits in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. 10. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of this case and gone through the record in the light of contention raised on behalf of both sides. It appears that the definite case of prosecution that upon confidential information about presence of notorious criminal in the house of present petitioner, the raid was conducted in the odd night of 24.10.2005 by the informant (P.W.-1 Naresh Prasad Sharma) and other police personnel. It is also case of prosecution that due to non-availability of independent witness of search and seizure, the same was conducted in presence of Constables (P.W.-2 & 3), who have only admitted their signatures over the seizure and specifically stated that no search and seizure was affected in their presence and they have seen no recovery of any pistol or cartridge from the possession of the present petitioner. Although, the other witnesses affirmed that after seizure of the pistol and cartridges, the same was sealed and signed by the witnesses and also sent for its examination to test the working condition. The seized material produced by P.W.-8 Rampati Yadav clearly destructive of the aforesaid evidence of witnesses inasmuch as the seized material (Exhibit-1 & 2) were present without seal and signature and without any mark showing that the same were recovered in connection with the present case. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner was never a notorious criminal nor any relationship with the alleged notorious criminals mentioned in the FIR has been established by the prosecution with the present petitioner. Therefore, the entire exercise by the prosecution is shrouded with doubt. The alleged search, seizure and recovery could not be believed. I find that the learned trial court as well as appellate court has completely ignored the vital evidence of the witnesses as regards search and seizure of firearm and cartridges from the possession of the petitioner as well as its connection with the present case without any seal and signature of the officers and witnesses at the time of production of the same before the Court, as such, the impugned judgments and order suffer from perversity and material illegality, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I find merits in this revision, which is hereby allowed and the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned trial court as well as learned appellate court are hereby set aside and petitioner is acquitted from the charges, for which he has been convicted and sentenced. 12. The petitioner is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability of bail bonds and sureties shall also be discharged. 13. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.