Failure to seal seized arms and lack of valid sanction Vitiate conviction under Arms Act.

The appellant was apprehended on 29.04.2016 near Bokaro river by a police raiding party led by P.W.-5 (Officer-in-Charge, Muffasil P.S.).

Upon a search of his person, a country-made pistol and four .303 bore cartridges were allegedly recovered from his waist and pocket.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge–XII, Hazaribagh, on 27.02.2019 under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three and four years respectively, to run concurrently.

The appellant challenged this conviction on the grounds of procedural lapses and lack of evidence.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the search and seizure beyond reasonable doubt given the procedural irregularities and lack of independent witnesses

2. Whether the conviction is sustainable in the absence of a proven sanction order and forensic evidence regarding the efficacy of the arms

The court applied the evidentiary requirements of the Arms Act, 1959, specifically Sections 25(1-B)a and 26.

It emphasized the necessity of a valid Sanction Order for prosecution under the Act.

The court relied on the best evidence rule, requiring identification of seized articles (marking/sealing) and expert verification through a Forensic Report to establish the "firearm" status of the seized items.

Procedural safeguards regarding search and seizure, including the presence of independent witnesses and the "personal search" of the raiding officer before searching the accused, were also treated as essential to maintain the integrity of the recovery.

The High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with fatal lacunae. First, there were no independent witnesses to the search, and the raiding officer (P.W.-5) failed to offer himself for a personal search before searching the appellant.

Second, testimonies of the raiding party (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) were contradictory regarding who conducted the search.

Third, the seized arms and ammunition were neither marked nor sealed at the time of seizure, and the Investigating Officer (P.W.-6) admitted receiving them in an unsealed condition, creating a gap in the chain of custody.

Fourth, the prosecution failed to examine a forensic expert or provide a report proving the seized items were functional firearms.

Finally, the court noted that the mandatory sanction order (Ext.-6) was not legally proved, and the case diary showed no request for such sanction.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2019 were quashed and set aside. The appellant was discharged from the liability of his bail bond.