1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 30-04-1997 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 321/91. By the impugned judgment, appellant Raju @ Judge Khan and co-accused Krishna have been convicted under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (henceforth 'the Act, 1959') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. Three other co-accused Mohan, Mohammad Naseem and Abdul Hamid have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. Other co-accused, namely, Premchand, Trilok Singh, Sarvan, Ramprasad and Omprakash have been declared absconded.

2. Co-accused Krishna has also been convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment in the manner mentioned above, but this appeal has been preferred by appellant Raju @ Judge Khan only.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under :

Inspector Sanjay Borkar (PW-3) was posted as Station House Officer in Police Station Bhilai Bhatti on 24-01-1991 and Sub-Inspector Pranesh Dubey (PW-4) was posted as Sub-Inspector in the said police station. On 24-01-1991, Inspector Sanjay Borkar (PW-3) received information that some persons were making preparation for committing dacoity. After receiving the information they went near Sector 1, Railway Station, Bhilai and surrounded the area. One matador No. C.P.K. 1187 was standing there and appellant Raju @ Judge Khan and other co-accused persons were sitting inside the matador. One person was sitting on stearing. On being enquired, the appellant and other co-accused persons told their names to the police party. The accused persons were searched by police party and desi katta, rod, khukhari, nakab, torch, cartridge were seized from the accused persons and a knife (chaku) was seized from appellant Raju @ Judge Khan. Seizure memo (Ex.-P/4) was prepared on the spot and knife (chaku) was recovered and seized from appellant Raju @ Judge Khan in presence of witnesses.

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused persons in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Durg, from where it was received on transfer by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced appellant Raju @ Judge Khan and co-accused Krishna, as mentioned above.

4. Shri M.D. Dhote, learned counsel for the appellant argued that a person can be convicted under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Act, 1959 only if such person acquires, has in his possession or carries in any place specified by notification under Section 4 any arms of such class or description as has been specified in that notification in contravention of Section 4 and as in this case, notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1959 has not been produced or proved before the Court below, the appellant could not be convicted under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Act, 1959. He further argued that Inspector Sanjay Borkar (PW-3) did not state regarding the description of the knife (chaku) and he further submitted that the seized knife (chaku) was not produced before the trial Court. Independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be based on the evidence of Inspector Sanjay Barkar (PW-3) and Sub-Inspector Pranesh Dubey (PW-4). Hence, the appellant deserves acquittal.

5. On the other hand, Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant do not call for any interference, by this Court.

6. To properly appreciate the arguments raised by Shri M.D. Dhote, learned counsel for the appellant, it would be necessary to refer to Sections 25(1B)(b) and 4 of the Act, 1959. Section 25(1B) (b) of the Act, 1959 provides tha