SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dared 3.6.1987 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar, in Cr. Case No. 206/84 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused respondent No. 1 Gurmeet Singh for the offence Under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1959) and also acquitted the accused respondent No. 2 Iqbal Singh for the offence Under Section 30 of the Act of 1959.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: That on 29.7.1982 A.S.I. P.W. 3 Saddique Mohammed along with other police officials of P.S. Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar, at about 6.20 P.M reached on the road running from Shri Ganganagar to Padampur, and found one Sardar having 12 bore gun and 2 live cartriges for which he was not having licence and at that time he was shooting pigeons. Thereafter, that 12 bore gun alongwith two live cartridges were seized through Fard Ex.P.l and F.I.R. Ex.P -3 was chalked out and after obtaining sanction in Ex.P. 5, police came to the conclusion that the accused respondent Gurmeet Singh committed offence punishable Under Section 25 of the Act of 1959 and since accused respondent Iqbal Singh was licencee of that gun, but he gave it to another accused Gurmeet Singh, therefore, he also committed offence Under Section 30 of 1959 Act, and, challan was filed against both the accused respondents. Learned Magistrate on 30.1.1986 charged the accused respondent No. 1 Gurmeet Singh for the offence Under Section 25 of the Arms Act and accused respondent No. 2 Iqbal Singh Under Section 30 of the Arms Act, but both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After recording the prosecution evidence and statement Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused respondents, learned Magistrate through his judgment and order dated 3.6.1987 acquitted both the accused respondents from the charges levelled against them inter alia holding: Since accused respondent No. 2 was licencee of gun, and, if it was temporarily given by him to accused respondent No. 1, who was his nephew, therefore, in these circumstances, possession of that gun with accused respondent No. 1 did not make out any offence. Aggrieved from judgment and order of the learned Magistrate dated 3.6.1987, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan and in this appeal learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of State has submitted that 12 -bore gun and 2 live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused respondent No. 1 Gurmeet Singh, therefore, it is a clear cut proved case for offence Under Section 25 of the Arms Act as he was having gun without licence, and, simultaneously, the accused respondent No. 2 Iqbal Singh contravened the conditions of the licence, therefore, offence is also made out against accused respondent No. 2, for offence Under Section 30 of the Act of 1959, and, thus, both the accused respondents should have been convicted for the offences for which they were charged.
(3.) ON the other hand, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the caused respondents that the findings of the learned Magistrate are based on correct appreciation of facts and law, and, therefore, appeal be dismissed.;