ORDER Sinha, J. - Mohammad Siddiq and his son Latif have come to this Court in revision against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur affirming the judgment of a learned Magistrate of the first class, by which he sentenced the former to rigorous imprisonment for nine months and the latter to a fine of Rs. 100 and in default, to rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The charge against them was that a large quantity of melted fired bullets, empty cartridge cases, some live cartridges and some other goods were recovered from the possession of the accused. Mohammad Siddiq admitted the guilt and admitted the possession of the articles. He further stated that his son, Latif, lives separate from him. The learned Magistrate disbelieved this story of separation and passed the sentences mentioned above. This story did not commend itself also to the learned Sessions Judge. He affirmed the conviction. 3. The learned counsel contends that Latif, who is, as appears from the evidence, still in his teens, cannot even on the findings of the Courts below, be held guilty. Section 3 of the Military Stores (Unlawful Possession) Ordinance 33 [XXXIII] of 1943 says : Whoever is found or is proved to have been in possession of any article of military stores shall, if the Court sees reasonable grounds for believing such article to be or to have been the property of His Majesty or of a foreign Power allied with His Majesty, as the case may be, unless he proves that the article came into his possession lawfully, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both. 4. The word "possession" came up for consideration in a case under the Indian Arms Act where the accused were junior members of a joint Hindu family and I held in Hirdey Ram Vs. Emperor, AIR 1946 All 4 That possession must be deemed to be with the manager or Karta of the family and no other member of the family could be said to have been in possession of the same. 5. Emperor, AIR 1946 All 4 That possession must be deemed to be with the manager or Karta of the family and no other member of the family could be said to have been in possession of the same. 5. In a Mitakahara family a male member acquires an interest by birth and if 'possession' rests, in law with the karta or the manager and not with the junior members, it must, in the case of a Mohammadan family, remain, a fortiori with the father and not with the son. The father is, so long as he is alive, the exclusive owner of the property. The conviction of Latif cannot, in this view of the law, stand and I set aside his conviction and sentence. 6. As regards Mohammed Siddiq, having regard to his admission of the guilt, the ends of justice shall be sufficiently met if the sentence is reduced from nine months to six months' rigorous imprisonment.