PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J. - (1.) Vide decision dated 03.10.1994, the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The learned Magistrate imposed sentence of two years R.I. In appeal vide judgment dated 21.08.1996 the conviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced to one year R.I.
(2.) Having perused the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits, regretfully, both courts have overlooked the fact that when the fire-arm was allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner it was not sealed. The witnesses admit of that fact. Further, there is no evidence that the fire-arm was deposited in the 'Malkhana'. The purity of the seizure is seriously in doubt.
(3.) Under the circumstances there is a miscarriage of justice. The petitioner was certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt.;