ORDER

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence. Vide judgment dated 20.04.2023 passed by J.M.F.C. Harda in RCT No.2826/2015 applicant Ramshankar @ Shankar Sirohi was convicted both under Section 25(1-B)(a) and 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations respectively, whereas applicant Abhishek @ Chintu was convicted for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. Applicant Ramshankar preferred the Cr.A. No.33/2023, while applicant Abhishek @ Chintu preferred Cr.A. No.35/2023. Both these appeals were decided by a common judgment by the Sessions Judge, Harda on 05.09.2023, by which the appellate Court partly allowed Cr.A. No.33/2023 preferred by applicant Ramshankar @ Shankar regarding offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act and handed out the judgment of acquittal for that offence while his appeal for the other offence and also criminal appeal preferred by applicant Abhishek @ Chintu were dismissed both on conviction and sentence.

2 . Prosecution case is that on a patrolling duty ASI Ramprasad Kavreti received an information on 14.08.2015 regarding some persons carrying prohibited arms in an Alto car bearing registration No. MP-09/CJ-7802. He set up a checkpoint near Handiya bypass square and the Alto Maruti car was intercepted near Bajrang Mandir. Two passengers were inside the car, who were the present applicants. On personal search, applicant Ramshankar @ Shankar Sirohi was found in possession of a firearm of 12 bore and a live cartridge, while a sword shaped sharp weapon was placed on the dashboard of the car which had a 12 inch long blade, while its total length was 16 inch. The seizure of two weapons was made and the weapons were sealed. The applicants were arrested and brought to the police station where the FIR was registered and the investigation was held. In the ensuing trial, the applicants were convicted and sentenced as discussed earlier and the appeal preferred by applicant Ramshankar was allowed partly.

3. The applicants have jointly preferred this criminal revision challenging their conviction and sentence under Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act. The grounds raised by them are that they were falsely implicated in the case as no weapon was seized from the exclusive possession of any of the applicants. The seizure witness Salman Khan failed to support the prosecution story, while the other witness Shivam was not examined before the trial Court. Sub Inspector Ramprasad Kavreti (PW2) acted both as complainant and the Investigating Officer and upon his sole testimony both the Courts below erroneously convicted and sentenced the applicants. The evidence available on record was contrary to the facts mentioned in the FIR. It is, therefore, prayed that the applicants be acquitted and this criminal revision be allowed.

4 . This criminal revision has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that there is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned judgment which would justify intervention in this criminal revision. It is, therefore, prayed that this criminal revision should be dismissed.

5. Both the parties have been heard and the records of the courts below have been perused.

6. The trial Court had convicted applicant Ramshankar @ Shankar Sirohi for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) and 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act, but the impugned judgment of appellate Court passed in Cr.A. No.33/2023 reveals that the appellate Court found the sanction order giving permission about prosecution as not proved and also not based on judicial application of mind, therefore, it allowed the Cr.A. No.33/2023 filed by applicant Ramshankar @ Shankar Sirohi regarding his conviction under Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act.

7. Th