JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Goalpara to show cause why the conviction of and sentence passed on the Petitioner should not be set aside, on the ground that be was not in possession of the gun within the meaning of the Arms Act. The Petitioner has been convicted under sec. 19 (f) of the Arms Act (XI of 1878) and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 5. 2. The facts are these : The gun used by the Petitioner belongs to a gentleman, named Rajendra Narain Chowdry, who has been exempted from the operation of the Arms Act. This gentleman is now in England. His gun seems to have been left by him with his brother, Jotindra Narain Chowdry. The Petitioner is a cousin of these two gentlemen. On the 30th March last a mad dog entered the compound of the bari of the Petitioner; and he seized the gun, which was in the hands of one Rajeswar, a servant, and fired at the dog. Unfortunately he missed the animal, but a shot from the gun wounded a man named Thanda Rajbunsi. For this he was convicted, under sec. 304A, I.P.C., and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300 and to detention in Court for one day. The Sessions, Judge, on appeal, reduced the fine to Rs. 100. 3. Now the Petitioner has been again prosecuted under sec. 19 (f) of Act XI of 1878. As regards this second prosecution we think, in the first place, that it was unnecessary and, in the next place, that the Petitioner is not liable under the provisions of sec. 19 (f) of the Act. The provisions of sec. 19 (f) do not make the mere possession of a gun punishable; they make possession, contrary to the provisions of sec. 14 of that Act, punishable; and we agree with the learned Counsel who appears for the Petitioner that the temporary possession which the Petitioner had of the gun when he snatched it up and fired it was not the possession contemplated by sec. 14. 4. We accordingly make the rule absolute and set aside the conviction and sentence. The fine, if paid, must be refunded.