ORDER :

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2012, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo of RI for 1 year and pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of three months.

2. Facts of the case are that on a secret information received on 17.8.2009 that the applicant, with an intention to sell Katta and cartridges, was roaming around his shop, the Police conducted a raid and caught the applicant and from the left side of his waist, one Katta (country made pistol), which was fixed to his belt, was recovered, and from his pocket, two cartridges were recovered. On enquiry, it was found that the applicant was not having valid license nor he was having any other documents in this regard. The applicant was arrested and Katta and the cartridges were seized vide Seizure Memo - Ex-P/1 and a spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/4.

3. The applicant abjured his guilt and took the plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents to bring home the offence.

5. Upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, District Kabirdham (CG) vide judgment dated 26.3.2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 629/2009 convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of three months.

6. In appeal preferred by the applicant, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (CG) vide order dated 26.3.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 36/2012 affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned JMFC and dismissed the appeal, against which, the applicant filed the instant criminal revision.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment and sentence passed by the Courts below are bad in law as there are several infirmities in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and further, even the material seizure witnesses have given contradictory statements. He submits that on the seized articles, no seal was affixed at the spot and even during the trial, the same was not placed before the Court below, therefore, the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgments rendered by the Supreme Courts in the matters of Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1998) 8 SCC 525 and Sahib Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 11 SCC 685. In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicant prays to allow the revision and acquit the applicant.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned judgment and records of the Courts below with utmost circumspection.

10. The material seizure witness - PW-1 Ravi Das has categorically stated that he has not put the signature on the Seizure Memo- Ex.P/1 and other seizure witness Dinesh (PW-4) has completely turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. In the seizure memo, no seal has been affixed though the articles were seized from the spot and also, the same were also not produced during the trial. Further, the aforesaid articles were seized on 17.8.2009 and the same were sent to the Armourer - Navin Kumar Yadav, Head Constable (PW-2), who examined it on 14.9.2009, however, the prosecution failed