Conviction set aside as unsealed ammunition and lack of forensic evidence fail to prove recovery.

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, for offences under Sections 25(1-A) and 26(2) of the Arms Act and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment

The prosecution alleged that on 09.10.2016, following secret information regarding the appellant's links with TPC extremists, a police raiding party searched his house and recovered four live cartridges from beneath a bed

The appellant was subsequently charge-sheeted and committed to trial. While the trial court acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, it upheld the conviction under the Arms Act

The appellant challenged this conviction on the grounds that the recovered items did not constitute "prohibited ammunition" and that the seizure process was procedurally flawed

1. Whether the recovered cartridges satisfy the definition of "prohibited ammunition" as required to attract a conviction under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the seizure and sealing of the recovered ammunition beyond reasonable doubt?

The court primarily applied Section 25(1-A) and Section 26(2) of the Arms Act, 1959, concerning the possession and concealment of prohibited arms or ammunition

The court relied on the definition of "prohibited ammunition" provided under Section 2(h) of the Arms Act, which specifies categories of ammunition that carry enhanced penalties

The court applied evidentiary standards regarding the integrity of the chain of custody, specifically the requirement for sealing seized articles at the place of occurrence and the necessity of independent witness corroboration during search and seizure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Code of Criminal Procedure

The High Court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed on both legal and factual grounds. First, the court noted that the seized cartridges did not fall under the definition of "prohibited ammunition" as per Section 2(h) of the Arms Act, making the conviction under Section 25(1-A) legally unsustainable

regarding the seizure process, the Court observed that the articles were not sealed at the place of occurrence

The Investigating Officer (P.W.-8) admitted that the description of the cartridges was missing from the seizure list and the details of the seal were not recorded in the case diary

the Sergeant Major (P.W.-3) admitted he did not sign the seal and provided an opinion based merely on "experience" rather than a forensic examination

The independent seizure witnesses (P.W.-6) turned hostile, stating nothing was seized in their presence. Consequently, the court held the recovery was doubtful and the chain of custody was broken

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2018 and the order of sentence dated 10.09.2018, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The appellant was discharged from the liability of his bail bond