By filing this appeal, the appellant State has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari on 27.4.2000 in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 1999 acquitting the respondent accused for the offence under section 25(1)(A) and 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act. 2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant received information that two persons are likely to arrive at Navsari from a train coming from Surat with fire arms. On the basis of the said information, the complainant with other police officers and panchas kept a watch at the railway station of Navsari. Meanwhile, two persons came near Autorickshaw stand from the railway over bridge and were found in suspicious condition. Therefore, they were stopped and search was made in presence of the panchas. On inquiry of these two persons, they disclosed their names as Balkrishna Ramshankar Shukla and Kamleshkumar Chandubhai Vasava. On their search, one country made 32 bore revolver and two live cartridges were recovered from Kamleshkumar Chandubhai Vasava and one country made Pistol of 22 bore and ten live cartridges and cash of Rs.150/- were recovered from Balkrishna Ramshankar Shukla. On inquiry about the licence, the persons could not produce the licence and therefore, the fire arms and cartridges were recovered after drawing panchnama and a complaint was lodged before Navsari Town Police Station on 23.8.1996. The offence was registered as C.R. No. II – 118 of 1996 for the offence under section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act and these two persons were arrested. On completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned CJM, Navsari for the offence under section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act and it was registered as Criminal Case No.7657 of 1996.
3. Learned CJM, Valsad at Navsari framed charge Exh-
7 against the accused for the offence under sections 25(1)(A) and 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused were explained to them. The accused in their further statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stated that no fire arms or cartridges are recovered from them and they are innocent and false case is filed against them. After hearing learned APP and learned advocate for the accused, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused. Therefore, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.63 of 1999 in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari. Learned lower appellate Judge after hearing learned APP acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the lower appellate Court.
4. I have heard learned APP Miss Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Thakore for the respondent at length and in great detail. I have also perused the R & P of the trial Court.
5. Learned APP Miss Shah submitted that the panchnama with regard to recovery of weapons was duly proved through police officer and there is no law that the police officers' evidence cannot be believed. She also submitted that sanction was obtained before the charge sheet was filed and therefore, the lower appellate Court committed error in acquitting the accused and hence, the appeal is required to be allowed. She relied on the decision of Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 9 SCC 362.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Thakore for the respondent accused submitted that though the search was carried out in a public place in the evening, statement of the independent witnesses were not recorded by the investigating agency and therefore, the trial Court committed error in relying upon the sole evidence of police official to convict the accused, but the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment of conviction. He further submitted that the panchnama was not duly proved as the panchas turned hostile and the conviction cannot be based on the sole evidence of police official. Therefore, the lower appellate Court was justified in acquitting the accused and no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and the appeal is required to be dismissed. He relied upon the decision of Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi reported in AIR 1999 SC 49 and the decision of Narsi Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1999 SC 234.
7. In view of the rival contentions, it emerges that on the basis of an information, a watch was kept near the railway station and the accused were intercepted and searched. It also emerges that fire arms with live cartridges were allegedly recovered from the accused during the search and a panchnama was drawn in that regard. It is not in dispute that panch witness PW 1 Doshubhai Hormasji Exh-13 did not support the drawing of panchnama and turned hostile. The witness was extensively cross examined by the learned APP. However, during the course of cross examination also, the prosecution could not elicit that recovery was made from the accused and the panchnama Exh-14 was drawn. It appears from the evidence of this witness that except identifying his signature on panchnama Exh-14, he did not depose about recovery of fire arms and cartridges. The contents of the panchnama are proved through complainant PW 4 Maganbhai Fadadubhai Jadav Exh-19. In the decision of Sans Pal Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that recovery of fire arms based on evidence of police official alone would not be sufficient to connect the accused with recovery of fire arms. In the decision of Narsi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that in absence of any independent evidence, seizure of fire arms and cartridges from possession of the accused becomes doubtful.
8. In the present case, it emerges from the complaint Exh-20 that the search was carried out near railway station i.e. at a public place in the evening at about 18:00 hrs. As panchas have not supported the prosecution case and the panchnama is proved by police witness, in my view, the prosecution case with regard to recovery of fire arms raises serious doubts. The decision relied on by the learned APP with regard to evidence of police officer effecting recovery under section 27 of the Act has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. The evidence of the complainant also indicates that when the accused Kamleshbhai was caught, people assembled. Therefore, independent witnesses were available at the place of incident. However, statement of independent witnesses were not recorded. As independent witnesses have not been examined, it would not be safe to rely on the sole evidence of police witness to connect the accused with the offence.
10. As regards sanction to prosecute the accused, under section 3 of the Arms Act, no person shall have in his possession any fire arms or ammunition unless he holds the licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and Rules made thereunder. Under section 39 of the said Act, no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. In the present case, according to the prosecution, previous sanction was obtained from the District Magistrate and it was produced at Exh-25.
11. The prosecution examined PW 6 Dalpatbhai Makanbhai Solanki at Exh-23 to prove the sanction Exh-
25. According to the witness, his office received the proposal Exh-24 for sanction and pursuant to that, sanction Exh-25 was given. The witness in the cross examination deposed that on receipt of proposal for sanction, it is being recorded in the Register and thereafter, it is being put up before the concerned officer after recording it in the Inward Register. The prosecution has produced the proposal for sanction at Exh-24. It indicates that it was made on 20.11.1996. It also bears signature of two officers allegedly made at 12:45 and 12:50 on 20/12. The sanction Exh-25 appears to have been accorded on 20.11.1996. It also bears endorsement of two officers made on 20/12. The charge sheet came to be filed on 20.11.1996. Therefore, it appears that the proposal for sanction was forwarded on 20.11.1996 and on the same day, sanction was accorded and charge sheet came to be filed on the very same day. This raises serious doubts about grant of sanction, as the endorsement made by the two officers on both these documents indicate date of 20/12. Therefore, in my view, the learned lower appellate Judge was justified in raising serious doubts about the sanction. In view of above, the learned lower appellate Judge was justified in acquitting the accused. Learned APP failed to point out any infirmity in the impugned judgment.
12. In the result, the appeal fails and stands dismissed.
shekhar* (BANKIM.N.MEHTA, J.)