This appeal under Section 378 (1) and (3) of Cr.P.C.

is filed challenging the judgment dated 02.07.2019 passed

by

the

Prl.

Sessions

Judge,

at

Kalaburagi

in

S.C.No.284/2016, by which, the accused herein were

acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 25

(1) (1A), 26 (2) and 27 (1) of the Arms Act, 1959.

02. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:-

On 13.02.2015 at about 07.50 a.m. on receiving

credible information that, two persons were trying to sell

the pistol illegally, the Police Sub-Inspector of Afzalpur

Police Station along with his staff members and panchas

left the police station and when they reached the spot,

they found that two persons were standing near irrigation

office which is situated in between the Afzalpur –

Kalaburagi road. On apprehending them, and on enquiry,

they disclosed their names and one country made pistol

and live bullets were recovered in presence of panch

- 4 -

witnesses namely CWs.2 and 3 i.e., PWs.1 and 2 and

drawn the mahazar. The police after the investigation

submitted the charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences.

03. The learned Sessions Judge, after examining

the evidence on record held that, the prosecution has

failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt, by adducing consistent, cogent and

corroborative

evidence.

Consequently,

acquitted

the

accused of the aforesaid offences. Taking exception of the

same, the State is in appeal.

04. The learned High Court Government Pleader for

the State submits that non-examination of Deputy

Commissioner who had granted sanction to prosecute the

accused, is not mandatory since the accused had not

disputed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

granting sanction to prosecute the accused. He further

submits that, the evidence on record clearly discloses the

respondents – accused were in possession of pistol and

live bullets without holding any license as required under

- 5 -

the provisions of the Arms Act. Hence, he submits that the

impugned judgment of acquittal is not sustainable in law.

05. The learned counsel for the respondent –

accused submits that the prosecution having failed to

prove the seizure of the fire arms from the accused, the

learned Sessions Judge, has rightly passed the judgment

of acquittal and same does not warrant any interference.

06. Considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

07. PW.1 is the panch witness to the seizure

panchanama at Ex.P.1 and he has stated that his

signature was obtained on the seizure panchama when he

had gone to the police station to construct a compound

wall. The PW.1 was treated as hostile and nothing was

elicited

in

his

cross-examination

to

disbelieve

his

statement.

- 6 -

08. PW.2 is also the witness to the seizure

panchanama and he has categorically stated that he had

signed the panchanama at Ex.P.1 in the police station

when he had been to the police station to construct the

compound wall.

09. PW.3 and 4 are the police personnel who had

accompanied the investigating officer at the time of

conducting the raid. They have supported the case of the

prosecution.

10. PW.5 is the Retired Assistant Director of RFSL

Department, and has issued the FSL report as per Ex.P.6.

In Ex.P.6, he has opined that the weapon in article No.1

i.e., fire arm is an illegally manufactured fire arm. He has

further opined that the pistol in article No.1 is in a working

condition at the time of examination and the effective

range of the pistol is about 20 yards and the cartages sent

for FSL were alive.

- 7 -

11. PW.6 who is the PSI, who upon receiving

credible information conducted the raid. He seized the four

cartages and pistol, kept them in a white bag. The said

white bag was sealed and contained the signatures of the

panchas. He supported the case of the prosecution. In the

cross examination he has categorically stated that in the

seizer panchanama in what manner the seized fire arms

were sealed in the bag. He has further admitted that t