The significance of sealing the seized article on the spot and maintaining a clear chain of custody to prevent tampering and uphold the integrity of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 29.08.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No.180 of 1998; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.11.1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No.2065 of 1992, T.R. No.655 of 1998; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 25(1-b)(a) & 26 (1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year for each of the above offence and directed to run both the sentences concurrently; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed .

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 1.6.1992 one Mr. R.N. Kunwar, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police along with other official posted at Bank More Police Station, while searching at about 1.00 P.M., a Tata Model 608 vehicle bearing No. WB-55-0322 was seen coming rashly. It was stopped by the police and the driver was asked to produce the papers of the vehicle. The driver took out the papers one by one from the rekine bag in suspicious condition. On suspicion the informant took the bag in his hand in which he found a rifle cartridge. After recovery of cartridge personal search of the body of the driver was made and a country made pistol was also recovered from his waist. The driver could not produce any legal paper for the possession of the said arm. Thereafter, arm and a cartridge were seized by the police and accordingly seizure list was prepared in presence of two independent witnesses.

On the basis of aforesaid written report Bank More P.S. Case No.350/92 for the offence u/S 25(1-b)(a) and 26 (1) of the Arms Act was registered against the accused person and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet for the aforesaid sections. Accordingly, charge was framed against the petitioner for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and finally the petitioner has been convicted.

4. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on following grounds :-

(i) The Investigating Officer as well as other raiding party were not examined except the informant of the case who is P.W.-4.

(ii) P.W.-4 has admitted that pipe gun, pistol and rifle are three different arms and admittedly, the Sergeant Major who has given his ballistic report after 26 days of occurrence is of pipe gun and it is also an admitted fact that the seized article was pistol which clearly transpires from FIR.

(iii) Both the seizure list witnesses have been declared hostile as they have stated that they have signed on a blank paper.

(iv) The cartridge allegedly recovered from the petitioner also finds discrepancy with respect to the number mentioned in the cartridge.

(v) Mr. Kumar further raised a legal question and submits that as per the settled preposition of law, seized article should be sealed on the spot and special marking should be made on the seized article and subsequently shall be sent to the Sergeant Major for its examination. In the instant case there is a gap in the chain, inasmuch as, the prosecution has failed to prove that the article was sealed on the spot and marking was done, which clearly transpires that after a gap of 26 days the Sergeant Major has examined the seized article so there is every chances of manipulation.

Relying upon the aforesaid contention he submits that when the article was not sealed on the spot and there is no link as to when it was sealed and when it was sent to the Arms expert for testing; the missing link weakens the case of prosecution because tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out.

He concludes his argument by submitting that this serious infirmity has been ignored by the learned Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court which makes the entire order perverse in nature because they have not at all considered the settled preposition of law with regard to sealing of arms and marking o