1. This revision has been filed assailing the order dated 6.8.2003 passed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 311/02 convicting the accused under section 25 (I-B) (b) of the Arms Act and upholding the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment passed by the trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on the date of incident i.e. 8.2.1994, an information was received at police station, Tukoganj that opposite Disneyland, Indore at around 2: 10 p.m. accused Kalebabu was roaming around with an open spring knife and scaring passers-by, whereupon ASI Shri Ramsharan Soni PW 4 alongwith task force who were on the beat in the said vicinity went to the spot and found the accused wielding a spring knife without licence which was contrary to the notification issued by the State Government under section 4 of the Arms Act and consequently, the officer proceeded to arrest the accused and the offence was registered under section 25 (I-B) (b) of the Arms Act. The trial Court examined five witnesses and recorded their statements.

3. The accused abjured his guilt and stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. The petitioner accused however, did not examine any witness in his defence.

4. The trial Court on considering the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the petitioner accused was guilty as charged and sentenced him with punishment of one year's rigorious imprisonment without fine. On being aggrieved, the petitioner accused filed an appeal before the appellate Court where the appellate Court also upheld the conviction and sentence and hence, the present revision.

5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the accused petitioner has stated that the entire prosecution story was manipulated and unreliable due to the single fact that the weapon seized from the accused petitioner was never produced in the Court and if the basis of the conviction was notification issued under section 4 of the Arms Act, then the weapon seized should also be produced in Court to verify the specification and its non-production was fatal to the prosecution. Relying on Baijnath Singh v. State of M.P. [1998 (2) JLJ 69] learned counsel stated that this Court in the similar matter allowed the revision petition for the simple reason that the article seized was not produced before the Court in order to bring home the guilt which was punishable under the aforesaid notification and stated that the petitioner in this case should also be granted the benefit of acquittal. Learned counsel also urged that there was several other factors, which vitiated the investigation. The independent witnesses of recovery of the knife had turned hostile and their testimony ought not to be considered regarding the seizure and when the seizure itself was doubtful, the conviction ought to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner accused further submitted that since the Investigating Officer was also the officer who had seized the weapon, the conviction was bad in law and both the Courts below had relied on the testimony of PW 4 Shri Ramsharan Soni, ASI for the conviction of the accused. Learned counsel also stated that the notification, which restricted the possession of spring knife having a blade more than

6" inch long was not duly filed in accordance with law since the photo copy was placed on record. Learned counsel averred that the independent witnesses who were witnesses to seizure were also the informants and therefore, their testimony was not reliable. The entire investigation as well as conviction were contrary to the provisions of law and prayed for setting aside the order of the appellate Court, which had failed to consider the objections raised.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand has stated that the notification by the State Government dated 22.11.1994 was issued in public interest. It was a proved fact that accused Kalebabu was roaming arou