JUDGMENT Walford, J. - In the case out of which, this revision arises five persons, namely, Chhitta alias Chhotey Lal, Lakha, Bhagwan Din, Permun and Mst. Lallo, Were prosecuted u/s 19(f) of the Arms Act for being in possession of a country made pistol. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bilgram, who tried the case acquitted Parmun and Mst. Lallo on the ground that the former, though lived in the same premises, had separate apartments and was not in occupation of the room from which the pistol was recovered while the latter was an old and infirm woman and no presumption as to the knowledge of the presence of the pistol in the house could be raised against her. He convicted the remaining three accused before him and sentenced them each to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and also a fine of Rs. 100 each in default of payment of the fine to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The persons convicted went up in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Hardoi, who dismissed their appeal and maintained their conviction and sentences. They have come up to this Court in revision. 2. The facts in the case are few and sum pie. The station officer, Bilgram, while investigating a criminal case searched the house of the applicants on suspicion. In the course of the search he discovered a country-made pistol, Ex. 1, buried in a heap of bhusa inside a room. This room was used as a store for fodder, grain and other household goods. Though there are no shutters in the doorway of this room nevertheless it is not accessible to strangers. Only the inmates of the house can go in and out of the room freely. 3. The recovery of the pistol is not seriously disputed. The contention raided before me is that all the three brothers can not legally be convicted of the recovery of a contra 4. The lower Court in convicting the applicants relied upon a decision of Thomas, C.J., in Lallu Singh v. Emperor 1842 O.A. 271: A.W.R. (C.C.) 448 : O.W.N. 379. The facts in that case were somewhat similar to. the present case. Upon a search of the accused in that case a country-made pistol was recovered which was concealed under a heap of bhusa in a room. All the three brothers who lived in the house were prosecuted and convicted. The facts in that case were somewhat similar to. the present case. Upon a search of the accused in that case a country-made pistol was recovered which was concealed under a heap of bhusa in a room. All the three brothers who lived in the house were prosecuted and convicted. The decision in that case is somewhat distinguishable from the present case inasmuch as the evidence in that case established that the room from which the offending article was recovered was in the exclusive use and possession of the accused. In the present case there is no such evidence. The finding in the present cases that the room from which the pistol was recovered was in possession of the applicants has proceeded from the fact that the house is owned by the applicants and the presumption that it was in their exclusive possession must necessarily follow. If the ruing in Lallu Singh v. Bmperor 1842 O.A. 271: A.W.R. (C.C.) 448: O.W.N. 379 is intended to lay down that a recovery