The legality of investigation, reliability of evidence, and validity of sanction for prosecution are crucial factors in determining the guilt of an accused under the Arms Act.

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. This Criminal Revision under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 11-10-2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Budnagar, Distt. Ujjain, in Criminal Appeal No.15/2017, thereby affirming the judgment and sentence dated 24-12-2016 passed by J.M.F.C., Budnagar, Distt. Ujjain in Criminal Case No.158/2010, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and a fine of Rs.500/- with default imprisonment.

3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that on 27-1-2010, Sub-Inspector K.N. Sharma, who was posted in Police Station Ingoria, received an information from an informant that the applicant is in illegal possession of a pistol. The police party reached bus stand of village Chikali and with the help of the police force, the applicant was searched and he was found in possession of a pistol and two live cartridges. The applicant could not produce the license to hold the firearm and accordingly, he was arrested and crime no.20/2010 was registered against him for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act. The spot map was prepared. The seized pistol and cartridges were sent for examination. After obtaining the sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act, the police filed the charge sheet against the applicant for offence under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

4. The Trial Court framed charge under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of Arms Act. The applicant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Dinesh (P.W.1), Sanjay (P.W.2), Lalit Vyas (P.W.3), Shivnarayan Malviya (P.W.4) and Kailash Narayan Sharma (P.W.5). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

6. The Trial Court by judgment and sentence dated 24-12- 2016 passed in Criminal Case No.158/2010 convicted the applicant for offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and a fine of Rs.500/- with default imprisonment.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the applicant filed an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the Appellate Court, by judgment and sentence dated 11-10-2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.15/2017.

8. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that in the present case, the complainant as well as the investigating officer is one and the same person and accordingly the entire investigation is vitiated. It is further submitted that the independent seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and it has not been proved that the report of the armorer is in respect of the same firearm which was seized from the possession of the applicant.

9. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence, which has come on record, have given a concurrent findings of facts and the Counsel for the applicant could not point out any perversity in the judgment and sentence passed by the Courts below.

10. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

11. So far as the first contention of the Counsel for the applicant that the entire investigation is vitiated, because the complainant as well as the investigating officer is one and the same person, is concerned, the same is misconceived and is hereby rejected.

12. In support of his contention that the complainant and the Investigating Officer should not be the same person, the counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Raju Dubey vs. State of MP, reported in 1998 (1) JLJ 236 which read as under:-

"5. xxxxxxxxxx In a recent decision the Apex Court has held that the arresting officer should not be Investigating Officer himself xxxxxxxxx."

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Megha Sin