1. The applicant has preferred this revision under section 397 of CrPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.7.2003 passed by the Sessions judge, Vidisha, in Criminal Appeal No. 110/2002, whereby affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.11.2002 passed by the JMFC, Vidisha, in Criminal Case No. 149/2002, wherein the applicant has been found guilty under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to suffer imprisonment for one month.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.95 P.P. Gautam, Sub-Inspector of police posted at Police Station, Dehat, Vidisha, received secret information that the applicant was standing in suspicious position near Kua Khedi Barrier. On this information P.P. Gautam, Sub-Inspector together with other police force reached at Kua Khedi Barrier, caught the applicant/accused, made a search before the independent witness and seized a 32 bore country-made pistol with three cartridges as per seizure memo (Ex.P-l), which was found in the possession of the applicant. Thereafter, he (P.P. Gautam) returned back to the police station and registered a case under section 25 of the Arms Act against the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested, the seized fire arm was sent for mechanical examination to the DRP line Vidisha and the sanction to prosecute the applicant was obtained from the District Magistrate, Vidisha, as per the provisions of section 39 of the Arms Act and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

3. The applicant/accused abjured the guilt and his defence is of false implication. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record by impugned judgment dated 21st November, 2002 held the application/accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced him as stated hereinabove, aggrieved by which the applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal No. II 0/2002 which is decided by the Session Judge, Vidisha by judgment dated 31.7.2003, by which the appeal was dismissed and judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court was affirmed, hence, this revision petition on behalf of the applicant.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the independent Panch witnesses Jitendra Pachori (PW-I) and Harisingh Yadav (PW-2) have supported the facts of seizure of concerning firearm from the possession of the applicant. Similarly, on perusal of the statement of P.P. Gautam (PW-6), teh seizing officer, it is not clear that whatever firearm had been seized was sealed properly and signatures of the independent Panch witnesses were obtained on the outer cover of the sealed packet of the concerning firearm. This is further got supported by the statement of Jaykaran Sharma (PW-4), who was posted in the DRP line and examined the seized fire arm. He has also not stated that whatever fire arm had been seized was sent to him in a sealed cover packet and after breaking the seal, he had examined the aforesaid fire arm. In such circumstances, whatever article had been seized was sent for examination to Jaykaran Sharma is also not proved by prosecution. It is further submitted that P.P. Gautam (PW-6) is the seizing officer and he himself has conducted the investigation whereas Hon'ble apex Court in a decision of Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 2239 clearly held that seizing officer of the fire arm cannot be the investigating officer of the crime concerned and on this ground, the applicant is entitled for acquittal. Therefore, on the aforesaid grounds, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the impugned judgement and prayed for dismissal of the revis