The conviction under the Arms Act was set aside due to insufficient corroborating evidence, emphasizing that a police officer's testimony alone is inadequate without additional proof.

ORDER :

RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY, J.

This revision was finally heard on 12/8/2025 and today the order is being pronounced.

2. This criminal revision arose from the judgment dated 18.6.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bairasiya District Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No.81/2024 affirming the judgment dated 8.11.2024 passed by the trial Court in Criminal Case No.501026/2017 whereby the petitioner/accused has been convicted under section 25(1)(1B)(a) of the ARMS ACT , 1959 (for short "Act, 1959") and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

3. The prosecution case before the trial Court, in nutshell, is that on 30.4.2017, when Sub Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3) was on patrolling along with Constables Neeraj Dangi and Ranjeet Bhanoriya, on receiving information, recovered a country made pistol Katta and a cartridge from the petitioner/accused on his personal search near Main Road, Village Surajpura. The seizure was made in the presence of two witnesses namely Bhura @ Shivraj (PW1) and Ramswaroop (PW2). The seizure memo (Ex.P.1) was prepared and petitioner/accused was arrested and brought to the Police Station, Nazirabad along with seized articles. An FIR vide Crime No.96/2017 under Sections 25 /27 of the Act, 1959 was registered. After completing the investigation, sought sanction for prosecution from the District Magistrate, Bhopal as required under Section 39 of the Act, 1959. The final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bairasia.

4. The petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty before the trial Court.

5. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the solitary evidence of Sub Inspector M.L.Yadav (PW3) held that the firearm Katta and the cartridge were in unlawful possession of the petitioner/accused, thus, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. On preferring appeal against the same, the learned appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has submitted that none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The prosecution withheld other witnesses. It is further submitted that sanction for the prosecution is not valid for want of application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority. It is also submitted that the firearm was not properly examined by the Arms Expert and it was examined long after the date of recovery. It is submitted that the police has registered a false case against the petitioner/accused by planting Desi Katta and a cartridge.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for the State has also pointed out that the petitioner/accused has a criminal past. Hence, instant criminal revision be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

9. The prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses to establish the guilt of the petitioner/accused before the trial Court. Hiralal (PW4) has deposed about the examination of seized firearm Desi Katta and a live cartridge of 315 bore as per his examination report (Ex.P.9). Harish Sheetlani (PW5), being subordinate employee to the District Magistrate at relevant time, stated about the prosecution sanction (Ex.P-10) accorded by the District Magistrate, Bhopal. The examination report of the firearm and the prosecution sanction are not suf