B.Dayal, J. - (1.) This is a revision by Photu Singh who has been convicted under Section 19() Arms Act and has been sentenced to two years' R.I.
(2.) The prosecution case was that the station Officer having received information that the applicant, who was wanted in several crimes end was present in the house of Mahesh Pd. in Mohalla Qaisar Ganj, in the city of Meerut, a raid was organised to arrest him. After taking mutual search, the raiding party surrounded the house of Mahesh Pd. and when they found the applicant together with Khub Singh sitting on one cot and Mahesh Pd. and his son on the other. When the applicant saw that the raiding party had arrived there, he tried to take out a revolver from a leather case which was hanging on his shoulder under his kurta. The witnesses overpowered the accused and got the revolver snatched from him.
(3.) Upon these facts the only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the case was covered by Section 20 of the Arms Act and should have been committed to the Court of Session and the conviction of the applicant under Section 19(f) Arms Act was illegal. It is admitted in all hands that Section 19(f) Arms Act makes punishable mere possession of all arm without a licence. Section 20 of the Arms Act runs as follows: Whoever does any act mentioned in Clauses (a), (c), (d) or (f) of Section 19, in such manner as to indicate an intention that such act may not be known to any public servant as defined in the I.P.C., or to' any person employed upon a railway or to the servant of any public carrier, and Whoever, on any search being made under Section 25, conceals or attempts to conceal any arm ammunition or military stores shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. The very words Of this section clearly indicate that a case is covered by Section 20 of the Act only if apart from possession, the accused does some positive act which would indicate that he is trying to conceal the arm from a police officer or a railway servant. Something more than mere possession has to be proved before the case is covered by Section 20. In the present case there is no evidence whatsoever to indict that the accused tried to conceal the arm from the police when he learnt that the police had come. On the contrary, the evidence is that he started taking out the arm from a leather case in which it was kept.;