This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.5.2003 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, in Criminal Appeal No. 191/2002.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this revision are that Police, Ratlam, filed a charge-sheet against the appellant and one other accused person Bhagirath S/o Munnalal under section 5/25 (1) (a), Arms Act, whereupon a criminal case was registered against the said persons. Bhagirath died during the pendency of the trial, therefore, applicants alone were tried by the trial Magistrate for the commission of the offence punishable under section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act and after trial, they were convicted for the commission of the above said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each vide judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam, in Criminal Case No. 185/2002, on 14.11.2002. Feeling aggrieved by the above said order of conviction and sentence, applicants preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, vide the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the appellants have filed this revision petition.

Prosecution's case is that Prem Singh Solanki (PW 3) was posted as Station House Officer of Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam, on 23.7.1999. On that day, he was informed that Bhagirath was illegally selling swords outside his house. On receiving the information, Prem Singh Solanki (PW 3) reached on the spot with police force and witnesses Saleem and Kishan and a raid was made and Bhagirath and applicants were caught on the spot selling and manufacturing swords and knives illegally. They did not produce any licence for selling and manufacturing the arms. Applicants and Bhagirath were arrested by the Police and incriminating articles were seized. An offence under section 5/25 (1) (a), Arms Act was registered by the Police and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned trial Magistrate found the testimony of Prem Singh Solanki (PW 3) reliable and trustworthy. Learned trial Magistrate has held that his testimony and the testimonies of Mangu Singh S/o Onkarlalji (PW 4), Mangulal S/o Shivcharan Sharma (PW 5), Dilip Singh S/o Ram Prasad Singh (PW 6), Bapu Singh S/o Mallaya (PW 7) and Idnis Khan S/o Hajarat Ali (PW 8) have been corroborated by the testimonies of each other. Learned trial Court has held that their testimonies cannot be brushed aside only because they are Police officers. It is true that veracity of a witness cannot be doubted only on the ground that he is a Police officer, but the testimony of such a witness shall be closely scrutinized before acceptance. Particularly, when panch witnesses do not support the case of prosecution and their statements do not reveal any fact which might suggest that they are hiding the truth, testimonies of witnesses who are Police officials shall be accepted with great caution.

Prem Singh Solanki (PW 3), under whose leadership search and seizure were made, has stated in paragraph 16 of his statement that all the members of the search party went together to the spot while Mangu Singh (PW 4) has stated in paragraph 5 of his statement that they started from the Police Station in two groups. Idnis Khan (PW 8) states that they all have gone together but on the spot they were divided into two groups.

Prem Singh Solanki (PW 3) does not state that search or the raiding party was divided in two groups. This makes the testimonies of the witnesses doubtful. While judging the deposition of rural witnesses, Court could not apply the same standard of exactitude and consistency as that of urban witnesses. So, the standard for judging the deposition of Police officers and any other public man shall also differ and such minor discrepancies might be of greater importance while judging the deposition of Police officers which could be ignored in case of other wit