No one appears in support of the revisional application though Mr. Amartya Ghosh, learned advocate, appears on behalf of the State, when the matter is called on.

2. The revisional application was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 18th May, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas, in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2013 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8th February, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore in G.R. No. 4166/2012 arising out of Belgharia Police Station Case No. 393 dated 9th September, 2012.

3. The prosecution case is that on 9th September, 2012 at about 02.05 hours one Anupam Mondal, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Belgharia Police Station received a telephonic information to the effect that one person being equipped with fire arms had taken shelter in the roof of a partly constructed building of Shanti Ranjan Ghatak Memorial Urdu Girls High School. The said information was diarized and a raid was conducted at the said place by the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant attempted to join local witnesses in the search, but owing to the late hour in the night none could be found. Upon reaching the roof of the said building, a person was arrested, who disclosed his name as Md. Munna (the petitioner herein) and from his possession one country made shutter pipe gun having wooden butt metallic body and barrel with effective trigger and firing pin operation measuring 11\" and another country made shutter pipe gun having wooden butt metallic body and barrel with effective trigger and firing pin operation measuring 10\" were recovered from his waist. Both the arms were loaded with one 8 mm live ammunition. Seizure list was prepared. The seized articles were packed, labelled and sealed. The petitioner was brought to the police station and the written complaint was registered. Upon investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 25 (1B)(a) of the Arms Act. In course of trial charge under the aforesaid section was framed against the petitioner. The prosecution examined six witnesses, exhibited the seizure list and other relevant documents. The defence of the petitioner was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. In appeal, the appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

4. It has been pleaded in the grounds of appeal that the prosecution case is out and out false and that the findings of the learned Courts below are illegal and contrary to law.

5. I have perused the impugned judgment and I find that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been elaborately dealt with by the learned Courts below. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were the members of the raiding party and they have consistently supported the prosecution case of possession and recovery of firearms and ammunitions by the petitioner. Seizure list has been proved in accordance with law. The cross-examination of the said witnesses do not discredit their version and their evidence was rightly accepted by the learned Courts below. P.W. 4 was the arms expert, who opined that the seized arms and ammunitions are in working condition. P.W. 6 was the investigating officer of the case.

6. The only legal issue raised in the grounds is that the investigating officer was the informant and a member of the raiding party and, therefore, ought not to have investigated the crime. No personal bias is, however, alleged against the investigating officer. I find that the investigation in the instant case was conducted in accordance with law and no prejudice can be demonstrated against the petitioner in that regard. Other prosecution witnesses have proved the case beyond reasonabl