JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— The appellant Ram Sarup has been convicted under section 19, cl. (c) of the Arms Act, under section 20 read with section 19, cl. (c) of that Act, and under the second paragraph of section 20 of the Act, and has been sentenced to different terms of imprisonment, including solitary confinement. It appears that upon information received by the District Magistrate the house of Ram Sarup was searched by the Police. A pistol was found in a granary attached to a shop carried on by Bam Sarup among bales of cloth. Three swords and another pistol were found in another room concealed behind some beams. Some ammunition was also found in that room. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted Ram Sarup of having imported arms in contravention of the provisions of section 6 and of being in possession of such Arms. He has also convicted him of having concealed, or attempted to conceal, arms on search being made in his house. I shall consider the questions raised in the order in which they were argued by Sir Walter Colvin on behalf of the appellant. He contends that the conviction under She second paragraph of section 20 is illegal, as upon the facts found there was no concealment or attempt at concealment within the meaning of the section. 2. The learned Judge finds, and the evidence proves, that when Mr. Williamson, the District Superintendent of Police, went to search the house in which Ram Sarup lived, the latter denied that he had any arms in his possession. The learned Judge says that this amounted to concealment, as the word “conceal” bears the meaning of “forbearing to disclose.” I am unable to agree with the learned Judge. The words “conceals or attempts to conceal” in the second paragraph of section 20 must be read with what proceeds, namely, that the concealment or attempt at concealment was made on a search being made under section 25. This obviously does not mean that a mere denial to a Police Officer making a search of any arms being in the house is equivalent to concealment or attempt at concealment. There must be some overt act of concealment or attempt at concealment with a view to prevent the discovery of the arms searched for. No such thing happened in this case. There must be some overt act of concealment or attempt at concealment with a view to prevent the discovery of the arms searched for. No such thing happened in this case. I am therefore of opinion that the conviction under the second paragraph of section 20 cannot be sustained. The learned Assistant Government Advocate made no attempt to support the learned Judge's view upon this point. The conviction and sentence under the second paragraph of section 20 must therefore be set aside. 3. The next question is whether it has been proved that the accused had arms in his possession. As I have already said, a pistol was discovered in a granary behind the shop which is carried on by the accused alone. The other arms were found in a room of which the accused had the key. He stated to the District Superintendent of Police that he had lost the key of that room, and thereupon the padlock was broken open, the room was entered and the arms were discovered. The arms were thus found in a part of the house which was in the exclusive possession of the appellant. It is true that according to the evidence of Gobardhan Das, the brother of the accused, he and his brother form a joint Hindu family. But the evidence discloses that the rooms in which arms were found were in the exclusive possession and under the control of the accused. This distinguishes the present case from the case of Queen-Empress v. Sangam Lal (I.L.R., 15 All, 129). I am therefore of opinion that the conviction upon the charge of being in possession of arms must be upheld. 4. As for the charge of importing arms, the evidence proves these facts:— Ram Sarup went to Gwalior on the occasion of the funeral ceremonies connected with the death of the father of one Chiranji Lal. He was staying with Chiranji Lal, and on that occasion at his request Chiranji Lal bought certain arms, one of which was the pistol, exhibit T, found in the possession of the accused. It has also been proved that he was on that occasion accompanied by two men Teja and Kalian, who, according to the evidence of Gobardhan Das, are the associates of one Buraua, who is said to have ruined the accused Ram Sarup. It has also been proved that he was on that occasion accompanied by two men Teja and Kalian, who, according to the evidence of Gobardhan Das, are the associates of one Buraua, who is said to have ruined the accused Ram Sarup. After Ram Sarup's departure from Gwalior some more arms were bought by Chiranji Lal and put in a box which contained the pistol, exhibit I. The box was made over to Teja and Kalian who brought it away. Some of those arms were found in the possession of the accused and have been duly identified. Coupling these circumstances together, it is resonable to infer that the arms were imported by the accused. I, think the conclusion at which the learned Sessions Judge has arrived upon this part of the case is correct. 5. Now remains the question of sentence. The accused is a young man belonging to a respectable and well-to-do family of zamindars and moneylenders. It is manifest that the arms were not imported for the purpose of committing any crime. Under these circumstances the sentences passed on him are in my judgment unduly severe. I think the ends of justice will be sufficiently met by altering the sentences under section 19, cl.(c), and under section 20 read with section 19, cl. (f), to sentences of six months' rigorous imprisonment, the two sentences to run concurrently, and I order accordingly. The sentence of solitary confinement is set aside, as also are the conviction and sentence under the second paragraph of section 20. To the above extent I allow the appeal.