ORDER
Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-5-2003 pased by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Appeal No. 191/2002.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this revision are that Police, Ratlam filed a charge sheet against the appellants and one other accused person Bhagirath s/o Munnalal under Section 5/25(1)(a), Arms Act, where upon a criminal case was registered against the said persons. Bhagirath died during the pendency of the trial, therefore, applicants alone were tried by the Trial Magistrate for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act and after trial, they were convicted for the commission of the above said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each vide judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam in Criminal Case No. 185/2002 on 14-11-2002. Feeling aggrieved by the above said order of conviction and sentence, applicants preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam vide the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the applicants have filed this revision petition.
3. Prosecution’s case is that Prem Singh Solanki (P.W. 3) was posted as Station House Officer of Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam on 23-7-1999. On that day, he was informed that Bhagirath was illegally selling swords out side his house. On receiving the information, Prem Singh Solanki (P.W. 3) reached on the spot with police force and witnesses Saleem and Kishan and a raid was made and Bhagirath and applicants were caught on the spot selling and manufacturing swords and knives illegally. They did not produce any licence for selling and manufacturing the arms. Applicants and Bhagirath were arrested by the Police and incriminating articles were seized. An offence under Section 5/25(1)(a), Arms Act was registered by the Police and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
4. Learned Trial Magistrate found the testimony of Prem Singh Solanki (P.W. 3) reliable and trustworthy. Learned Trial Magistrate has hold that his testimony and the testimonies of Mangu Singh s/o Onkarlalji (P.W. 4), Mangulal s/o Shivcharan Sharma (P.W. 5), Dilip Singh s/o Ram Prasad Singh (P.W. 6), Bapu Singh s/o Mallaya (P.W. 7) and Idnis Khan s/o Hajarat Ali (P.W. 8) have been corroborated by the testimonies of each other. Learned Trial Court has held that their testimonies can not be brushed aside only because they are Police Officers. It is true that veracity of a witness can not be doubted only on the ground that he is a Police Officer, but the testimony of such a witness shall be closely scrutinized before the acceptance. Particularly, when panch witnesses do not support the case of prosecution and their statements do not reveal any fact, which might suggest that they are hiding the truth, testimonies of witnesses who are police officials shall be accepted with great caution.
5. Prem Singh Solanki (P.W. 3), under whose leadership search and seizure were made, has stated in Paragraph 16 of his statement that all the members of the search party went together to the spot while Mangu Singh (P.W. 4) has stated in Paragraph 5 of his statement that they started from the police station in two groups. Idnis Khan (P.W. 8) states that they all have gone together but on the spot they were divided into two groups. Prem Singh Solanki (P.W. 3) does not state that search or the raiding party was divided in two groups. This makes the testimonies of the witnesses doubtful. While judging the deposition of rural witnesses, Court could not apply the same standard of exactitude and consistency as that of urban witnesses. So, the standard for judging the deposition of police officers and any other public man shall also differ and such minor discrepancies might be of greater importance while judging the deposition of police officers which could be ignored in case of other witnesses. Judging from this angle, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses could not be safely relied. Learned Trial Magistrate did not consider the testimonies of the Police Officials from the above angle and has relied upon them without close scrutiny, hence, did not exercise the discretion properly.
6. It is note worthy that it does not appear from the record that the arms said to be seized has been brought before the Court during the trial and were shown to the witnesses. Thus, there is no legal seizure in the eye of law in the absence of material exhibit of articles. Prosecution has also not brought on record any notification of the Central Government issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act, regulating the acquisition, possession and carrying of arms in the District Ratlam.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, the benefit of doubt might have been extended to the applicant. The conviction of the applicant is not sustainable in law as there is manifest illegality in the conviction and sentence of applicant. Learned Lower Appellate Court, did not notice the illegality committed by learned Trial Court and endorsed the findings and conviction and sentence based on them.
8. Consequently, this revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the applicants are acquitted of the charge under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act.