Invalid prosecution sanction and unverified seizure of firearms necessitate acquittal in arms and dacoity cases.

The State appealed against an order of acquittal dated 31.10.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Panna

The prosecution alleged that on 19.05.2017, the police received a tip-off regarding five individuals planning a robbery near a roadside ruin

Upon raiding the site, police allegedly overheard the accused planning to snatch a bag from a petrol pump employee and recovered a 315-bore Katta and live cartridges from one accused

The accused were charged under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and Section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act

The trial court acquitted the respondents, citing technical deficiencies and lack of corroboration

1. Whether the prosecution sanction for the offence under the Arms Act was validly granted by a competent authority

2. Whether the seizure of firearms and ammunition from the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt

3. Whether there is sufficient ground to interfere with the trial court’s judgment of acquittal under the appellate jurisdiction of Section 378 CrPC

The court applied Sections 399 (preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (assembling for dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act

Regarding appellate intervention in acquittals, the Court relied on the principles from H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023), Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024).

These precedents establish that if two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be followed, and an acquittal should only be reversed if the trial court’s view is "perverse," "legally implausible," or based on a "misreading of evidence"

The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a valid sanction under the Arms Act, as the sanction was issued by an ADM without proof of authorization from the Collector

Procedural lapses in the recovery of weapons were noted: the armorer (PW-2) did not test-fire the weapons nor record a memorandum for opening seals, and the seizure memorandums lacked seal impressions

Furthermore, the lack of "Japti chits" (seizure tags) on the firearms during testimony created significant doubt regarding the recovery

Applying the "double presumption of innocence," the Court determined that the trial court's decision was a "plausible view"

The prosecution could not demonstrate any patent perversity or error of law that would necessitate overturning the acquittal

The Court held that the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to the invalidity of the prosecution sanction and suspicious seizure procedures

It concluded that there was no ground for interference as the trial court's findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence. Case dismissed