Mumbai: A court recently acquitted a man arrested with allegedly 16 country-made pistols and 10 cartridges near Bhandup police station in 2012, citing procedural lapses and significant contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence.Chief judicial magistrate MRA Shaikh held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused, Kandivli resident Manohar Jawahar Gupta (44), beyond reasonable doubt.Defence advocate Aftab Qureshi said there were several contradictions and omissions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution also did not possess a valid sanction order to prosecute, he said.The court noted discrepancies in the prosecution’s theory. Head constable Ravindra Bhalerao said the seizure occurred near the railway tracks, while another officer claimed it happened at the police station. There were also inconsistencies in the description of the colour of the bag carried by the accused—black by some, blue in official documents. The court noted that there were also conflicting accounts about who received the tipoff: an inspector or a senior inspector.The court also spoke about the invalidity of the sanction order required under Section 39 of Arms Act. Deputy commissioner of police Sheela Sail admitted during cross-examination that she did not physically inspect the seized weapons or question officers involved in the seizure before granting the sanction. The court held that mere reliance on documents, without physical verification or thorough application of mind, rendered the sanction legally defective.“The protection provided under Section 39 is not a formality—it is a safeguard,” the court said, adding that prosecution without a valid sanction is unsustainable.Additionally, the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a prohibitory order under Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of Bombay Police Act at the time of the incident. The court emphasised that a valid promulgation order was essential to support that charge.In light of the lapses—invalid sanction, unproven prohibitory order and contradictions in witness testimonies—the magistrate ruled that the prosecution failed to establish its case.