Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment affirming the applicant's conviction for offence under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (henceforth 'the Act, 1959') and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2,000, the applicant has preferred the instant revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth 'Cr.P.C.'). The prosecution case, in brief, as unfolded during the course of trial, is as under:--

2.1 On 15-2-2005, at around 7:05 p.m., on a secret information received to the Assistant Sub-Inspector B.P. Rajwade (PW-2), who, on that date, was a Head Constable in Police Chowki Koriya, when they were on patrolling duty, that one person is roaming around with a Gandasa, which is a prohibited arms and upon which, they reached on the spot and seized the gandasa admeasuring 10.5 inches long, width 2 inches and total length of the Gandasa is 14.5 inches which is an arms within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, 1959 and possession of the same is prohibited by notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1959 and possession of the same without licence is punishable under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Act, 1959.

2.2 The applicant was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court for the said offence after due investigation. He pleaded no guilt to the charge and entered into defence.

2.3 In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined five witnesses and brought on record and exhibited five documents in support of its case. Whereas, the defence neither examined any witness nor brought any document on record.

2.4 The trial Magistrate, upon conclusion of the trial, convicted the applicant finding him guilty for the offence under Section 25(1B)(b) of the Act, 1959 and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year and with fine of Rs. 2,000.

2.5 In appeal, the appellate Court did not interfere with the finding of the trial Court rather accepted the finding with regard to conviction and sentence as well leading to filing of the instant revision questioning the conviction and sentence."

2. Shri Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, while criticising the judgment of conviction recorded by the two Courts below, would submit that the conviction as recorded by the two Courts below is patently illegal as the prosecution has failed to prove the said offence beyond shadow of doubt as neither the prosecution has proved that the alleged arms seized is a prohibited arms under Section 4 of the Act, 1959 and further more the seizure of the said arms is also not duly established. Therefore, the conviction followed by the sentence deserves to be set aside.

3. Opposing the above submission, Shri Prasun Bhaduri, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/non-applicant would submit that the arms seized from the applicant is a Gandasa which is a prohibited arms under the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1959. He would further submit that the seizure of the said arms from the applicant is duly established by the prosecution witnesses.

4. I have heard and considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record with utmost circumspection.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, following two questions emerge for consideration:

"1. Whether the object seized, i.e., sharp edged weapon Gandasa vide Ex. P-1 is a prohibited arms within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, 1959?

2. If yes, whether seizure of the said arms has duly been established by the prosecution

6. Answer to First Question:

The word "arms" has been defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, 1959, which states as under:--

"2. Definitions and interpretation.--(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

(c) "arms" means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offences, o