Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.1.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2015 (State v. Muneer alias Goli) arising out of Case Crime No. 680 of 2014, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Rampur, district Jaunpur whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 3/25 Arms Act with 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine with additional imprisonment of 2 months. The trial Judge has also given the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. to the appellant.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

3. The background facts, in brief, are that according to the prosecution case, on 2.11.2014, a secret information was received by the police from a Mukhbir (informer) that accused Muneer alias Goli, involved in Case Crime No. 670 of 2014 under Section 307 I.P.C. and 3 (2) V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Rampur, district Jaunpur, is waiting for the vehicle at Sanjha Chulha Dhaba and if prompt efforts are made, he can be easily arrested. On this information, the police party reached at the spot and arrested the appellant alongwith one country made pistol and 2 live cartridges. After arrest, the recovery memo was prepared on the spot at 5.30 p.m. on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered on the same day at 6.30 p.m. at P.S. Rampur, district Jaunpur and the matter was investigated. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed under Section 3 and 25 Arms Act against the appellant from which he denied and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced 3 witnesses in all. P.W. 1 is S.I. Arvind Kumar Yadav, who was posted at Chowki Incharge, Singwan, Police Station Rampur. He is the first informant of the case. He has arrested the appellant and recovered the alleged country made pistol from his possession.

5. P.W. 2 is pairokar of P.S. Kotwali, district Jaunpur. He has given the secondary evidence in place of Constable Ashok Singh Yadav, who was the scribe of the check F.I.R. He has identified the hand writing and signatures of Constable Ashok Singh Yadav, who had prepared the check F.I.R.

6. P.W. 3 is retired Sub Inspector Mohd. Azmi who is the investigating officer of the case.

7. The learned trial judge found the statements of all the three prosecution witnesses reliable and trustworthy and accordingly convicted the appellant under Section 3/25 Arms Act by the impugned judgment.

8. The legality and correctness of the impugned judgment has been challenged in this appeal on the following grounds :

1. The prosecution has not produced any independent public witness of recovery of arm from the possession of the appellant. All the three witnesses are police personnel who are highly interested and partisan witnesses.

2. The attention of this has been drawn to the recovery memo (Ext. Ka. 1) on which the Case Crime No. 680 of 2014 under Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Rampur, district Jaunpur is already mentioned. Learned counsel has contended that the number of case crime is normally registered at the time of registration of First Information Report and when at the time of preparation of recovery memo, the case crime number was not in existence, then how could it be possible for the first informant to mention the case crime number on the recovery memo prior to registration of case ? Learned counsel has further contended that from the aforesaid facts it is clearly evident that the entire prosecution story is false and concocted and the recovery is planted.

3. It has further been contended that the appellant was shown to be arrested by the police on 2.11.2014 on the basis of involvement in Case Crime No. 670 of 2014 under Sect