The absence of expert opinion and failure to establish that seized items met the legal definition of 'arm' and 'ammunition' under the Arms Act led to the acquittal of the appellant.

ORDER :

Dr. A.S. Anand, J. - The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Judge, Special Court, Bhatinda for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo eight years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 100 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Through this statutory appeal, he has questioned his conviction and sentence.

2. According to the prosecution case on 25-6-1984 the appellant was apprehended by Sub-Inspector Mohinder Singh, PW 2 and Head Constable Mohinder Singh PW 1 and from his personal search a .32 bore revolver along with 24 live cartridges were recovered. The appellant failed to produce any licence for the arm and the ammunition. Rough sketch of the revolver was prepared at the spot and the arm and ammunition seized from the appellant were put in separate parcels. The case was registered against the appellant at the police station on receipt of the ruqa from PW 2. After obtaining sanction from the District Magistrate, Bhatinda for prosecution of the appellant, the challan was presented in the Court.

3. The prosecution has examined Head Constable Mohinder Singh PW 1 and Sub-Inspector Mohinder Singh PW 2. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied the prosecution allegations against him and examined Gurdev Singh Sarpanch as DW 1, who deposed that the appellant had been arrested from the village and nothing incriminatory was recovered from him.

4. We need not detain ourselves to consider the statements of PW 1 and PW 2, the recovery witnesses, as we find that the prosecution case suffers from a serious infirmity in this case. The objects allegedly seized from the appellant were not sent for any expert opinion either to the ballistic expert or to any armourer. There is no evidence on the record to show that the objects recovered from the appellant satisfied the definition of ?arm? and ?ammunition? or ?firearm? as contained in the Arms Act. In the absence of any such evidence, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. This appeal consequently succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is hereby acquitted.

Appeal allowed.