HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No. 1641 of 2005 O R D E R: The two accused, who are revision petitioners herein, were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur, Chittoor District for the offence punishable u/Sec.25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, ( ‘the Act’ for short) for possessing SBML country-made guns in contravention of Sec.3 of the Act. The trial Court sentenced each of the accused to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and imposed fine of Rs.100/- with appropriate default sentence. Both the accused preferred appeal before the Sessions Court. The learned VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalli dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 2. The points for consideration in this revision are : i) whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? ii) whether the Judgment of the trial court and the appellate court are erroneous ? 3. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.2, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, Panjani police Station at the relevant point of time, received information on 18.8.2002 that some miscreants were moving in the forest with country-made guns without having licence. P.W.2 proceeded to the Jonnavarigunta forest along with P.W.1, his staff and another mediator. He found that A.1 and A.2 were moving with M.Os.1 and 2-guns without possessing licence. He accordingly, arrested both the accused under Ex.P1-mediator’s report and the same was registered as FIR under Ex.P2. A charge sheet was also laid against the accused for the offence u/Sec.25(1)(B)(a) of the Act for possessing country made guns in contravention of Sec.3 of the Act. 4. Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the accused contended that P.W.2 was the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer. P.W.2 conducted search and allegedly apprehended A-1 and A.2 while they were in possession of the country-made fire arms without licence. Perhaps, P.W.2 does not fit in the definition of complainant as well as the Investigating Officer. At any rate, there is no prohibition for a complainant to be the Investigating Officer. If the unification of the complainant and the Investigating Officer causes prejudice to the case of the accused, the same person as the complainant and the Investigating Officer should not be accepted. The prosecution failed to establish any prejudice to the accused by the mere fact that P.W.2 was the complainant and the investigating officer as well. This contention of the learned counsel for the accused therefore, has no relevance for the purpose of the present case. 5. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the accused however, is the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 was one of the two mediators, who participated in the raid/inspection. 6. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused were found with country-made guns (M.Os.1 and 2) without licence for the operation and that they thus, violated the provisions u/Sec.25(1B)(a) of the Act. 7. Curiously, P.W.1 deposed in the chief-examination that they found the accused with guns and that the accused tried to run away on seeing the police. The offence under the Arms Act prima-facie would have been made out from the evidence of P.W.1. However, in the cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that he was not personally present at the scene when the accused were arrested claiming that he was in the jeep at that time. He also deposed that he did not see the accused possessing any guns and that he came to know that the accused were in possession of guns through the police. He did not even identify M.Os.1 and 2 as the guns seized from the possession of A-1 and A-2. Thus, P.W.1 was not a witness either for the arrest of the accused or for the possession and seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 from A-1 and A2. The evidence of P.W.1 is of no evidentiary value in establishing the guilt of the accused in any manner. 8. The only other evidence is the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2, who is the Investigating Officer, speaks in terms of the charge sheet. However, I am not prepared to accept the solitary testimony of the Investigating Officer, who arrested the accused for the offence under the Act, unless, there is corroboration for the evidence of P.W.2. While corroboration could have been secured through Ex-P1- mediator’s report, the Investigating Officer failed to obtain such corroboration. 9. Ex.P1 is the mediator’s report allegedly prepared at the time of the arrest and seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 from A.1 and A.2. P.W.1 indeed, signed Ex.P1. The signatures of A.1 and A2 were not obtained on Ex.P1 although M.Os.1 and 2 were seized from them. No explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution why the signatures of A.1 and A.2 were not obtained on Ex.P1. It may be noticed that it is not even the case of the prosecution that the accused were requested to sign on Ex.P1 and that the accused refused to do so. Even in such an event, Ex.P1 would not have been of any value unless it contained such an endorsement. Evidently, there is no endorsement on Ex.P1 that A.1 and A.2 refused to sign Ex.P1. Thus, the only possibility of corroboration for the evidence of P.W.2 has not been established. Where the evidence of P.W.1 does not establish the arrest of the accused and seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 and where the evidence of P.W.2 does not find any corroboration, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that it is not safe to convict the accused on the basis of such an uncorroborated evidence of P.W.2. 10. It seems that the trial court and the appellate court did not appreciate the evidentiary value of the P.W.2 vis-à-vis P.W.1 and Ex.P1 and erred in concluding that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused since the uncorroborated evidence of P.W.2 per se does not establish the prosecution case. The accused consequently, are liable to be acquitted for the offence u/Sec.25(1B) (a) of the Act. 11. In the result, the revision is allowed. The revision petitioners are acquitted for the offence u/Sec.25(1B)(a) of the Act. The bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 shall stand discharged. The fine amount, if already paid by the accused shall be refunded to them. _____________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Dt. 16.09.2011 Mjl/*