Kuldip Singh, J.

Challenged in the present revision is the judgment dated 17.9.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali affirming the judgment and order dated 27.1.2015, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide which the present revisionist/ petitioner was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 for keeping in his possession one . 38 bore revolver, which is prohibited bore weapon, along with 4 live cartridges and was sentenced to undergo RI for five years. The period already spent by the convict was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence. The revolver and the cartridges were ordered to be forfeited to the State and be disposed of.

The facts of the case so far necessary for the disposal of the present revision are that on 19.12.2007, ASI Charan Singh was present near Tpoint at Mohali Club, Phase 11, Mohali in connection with investigation of FIR No.206 dated 11.12.2007 under Section 336 read with Section 34 IPC and had recovered .22 bore pistol from the accused petitioner. Magazine of the same was unloaded and 6 live cartridges were recovered. The same were taken into possession.

During the investigation of the said case pertains to FIR No.206 of 2007, the police obtained the remand of the accused. During interrogation, the accused suffered disclosure statement that he has kept concealed .38 bore Webly Scot, Birmingham, Made in England, revolver No.7611 along with 4 cartridges of 38 bore, 57 catridges of 22 bore and 2 empties of .22 bore in his house and can get the same recovered. In pursuance to the said statement, the accused got recovered the said revolver and cartridges. The same were taken into possession. On this present FIR No.211 dated 19.12.2007 under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act was registered at police Station Phase 8, Mohali.

After receiving the report regarding the revolver and cartridges from the forensic science laboratory, the Challan in this case was presented.

Accused was charge sheeted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, to which he pleaded not guilty.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined ASI Charan Singh (PW1), ASI Rajinder Singh (PW2), HC Ajit Singh (PW3), Gurmeet Singh (PW4), HC Iqbal Singh (PW5), ASI Sartaj Singh (PW6) and HC Sucha Singh (PW7).

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused pleaded innocence.

Accused did not lead any evidence in defence.

After hearing the prosecution and learned defence counsel and going through the evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide judgment and order dated 27.1.2015 convicted the present petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act and since the recovery was of a prohibited bore weapon, sentenced him to undergo RI for five years under the Arms Act, 1959. Aggrieved of the said judgement, the present petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide judgement and order dated 17.9.2015 affirmed the findings recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali and dismissed the appeal. This is how the present petitioner has come up in the revision before this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.

First and the foremost argument in this case is that no sketch of 38 bore revolver was prepared and that no sketch is there on file. Therefore, it cannot be said that the revolver produced in this case was the same which is alleged to have been recovered from the accused. I am of the view that the recovery memo clearly shows that 38 bore Webly Scot, Birmingham, Made in England was bearing a specific number i.e. 7611. Therefore, from the said number, the revolver could be easily identified by the laboratory as well as during trial. The revolver was in fact produced during trial and it was not suggested to the witness that it is not the same revolver which is alleged by the prosecution to have been recovered