contradiction. When he himself states that he has not signed the sticker, then how come the sealed fire arms were received by the Sergeant Major, who inspected the same. Thus, there is a doubt whether the materials, which were sent by the investigating officer, were actually the same materials, which were seized and if at all the same were the actual materials which seized, whether the said same materials were examined by the Sergeant Major. Further, Sergeant Major stated that one of the fire arms was non-functional. The material exhibits were produced before the Court by P.W.6. He stated that in three all the fire arms which were marked as Exhibit 5, 6 and 7 were loaded. This also gives rise to a doubt as to how a fire arm, which has already been tested by the Sergeant Major would remain loaded and was produced before the Court. After proper testing is completed, it cannot be said that the fire arm would remain loaded. This also creates a doubt whether the materials were actually produced for examination or not. Further, I find from the entire evidence that none of the witnesses have stated that as to from whose possession, which materials were recovered. The prosecution tried to match the recovery with the seizure list only, but, as stated earlier, the witnesses to the seizure have turned hostile. The investigating officer in his entire evidence has stated nothing about the occurrence. Evidence of the investigating officer clearly suggests that he has not investigated the occurrence, but, has only stated mainly about the recovery of the arms and sending the same to the Sergeant Major for examination. When I look at Exhibit 7, i.e., the sanction order, I find that the same has been given in a very mechanical manner. In the said report even the place from where the arms were alleged to have been recovered, has not been mentioned. This report has been formally proved by a witness, who does
