( 1. ) THIS decision shall also govern the disposal of Criminal appeal No. 282 of 1982 (Jalam versus State of M. P.) which arises out of the same judgment and involves common questions of fact and law.

( 2. ) THE appellants in both the appeals have been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to one years R. I. each, by judgment dated 31-5-1982, passed by Shri M. A. S. Khan, Special Judge, Damoh, in special Criminal Case No. 9 of 1982.

( 3. ) THE prosecution case against the two appellants is that on the night intervening 25th and 26th October, 1981, at about 4. 00 A. M. , Sub-Inspector Shri T. N. S. Gaur (P. W. 7) accosted them in the jungle between Harduwa and Ramnagar and took their search in the presence of witnesses Kannu (P. W. 5) and Puransingh (P. W. 6 ). Five live cartridges (4 new and 1 refilled) were seized from possession of appellant Dayalsingh -vide Ex. P-2 and one 12-bore Deshi gun was seized from possession of appellant Jalam -vide Ex. P-3. The two appellants were arrested vide Ex. P-4 and subsequently put on trial for offences punishable under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act read with Section 11 (4) of m. P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapaharan Pradhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981. It was alleged that the two appellants were going into the jungle to meet Chittarsingh a known and absconding dacoit. They were accosted in pursuance to the aforesaid information and tried as aforesaid.

( 4. ) THE two appellants denied any seizure from their possession and submitted that they have been falsely implicated by the police. Appellant Dayalsingh produced a gun licence issued in his favour by the District Magistrate, Damoh, presumably to prove that his possession of five live cartridges was not illegal. During the trial, all independent witnesses, including witnesses for seizure, viz. , Kannu (P. W. 5) and Puransingh (P. W. 6), did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. It was discovered that seizure-memos (Exs. P-2 and P-3) did not bear the signatures of Kannu (P. W. 5), though he was cited as a witness in both of them. This was admitted to be a mistake by the investigating Officer Shri Gaur, which had crept in because seizure was affected in the jungle and in the night. Puransingh denied any seizure in his presence. He, however, admitted his signatures in seizure-memos (Exs. P-2 and P-3 ). In cross-examination by the learned counsel for the appellants, he stated that Station Officer took his signatures on these two seizure-memos at Fatehpur police out-post and in the absence of the two appellants. He further stated that he signed these documents after sun-set. The learned judge found that the two Panch witnesses do not support the prosecution and, therefore, the appellants could not be convicted on their evidence. The learned Judge, however, found that evidence of Investigating Officer Shri Gaur (P. W. 7) was worthy of credence and sufficient to base the conviction and sentence of appellants for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act. That is how the two appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

( 5. ) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel for the appellants is that conviction of appellants Dayalsingh in the context of licence in his possession, is wholly illegal. It is also submitted that the conviction of the two appellants for offence punishable under section 27 of Arms Act cannot be maintained in the absence of intention necessary for the said offence. Relying on N. K. Das vs. State of W. B. , AIR 1974 SC 777, it is submitted that the sole testimony of Shri Gaur, the Investigating Officer, in the context of evidence of Panch witnesses, is not sufficient to justify their conviction and sentence.

( 6. ) A bare reading of the impugned judgment indicates that the learned Special judge has found the testimony of Shri Gaur (P. W. 7) worthy of credence and has convicted the two appellants in spite of the fact that Puransingh (P. W. 6), a witness to the seizure does not su