JUDGMENT : SANGHI, J. 1. The resp. keeps a hotel in Gwaltoli, Indore. On 20-2-1945, the police searched his house in the course of the investigation of a theft. From an iron safe fortythree revolver cartridges were recovered; of these, it is alleged, twenty-four were old. What it meant by old cartridges has not been explained. The respondent was prosecuted under S. 5, Indore Explosive Substances Act, for being in possession of explosive substances without an explanation that he had them for a lawful object. The learned Dist. Mag. Indore City convicted him under that section and sentenced him to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of as. 100. On appeal the learned Ses. J. acquitted him on the ground that the explanation rendered by him was a good one. The explanation given by the resp. was that he found these cartridges left by some one in the hotel. He kept them carefully to be returned to the owner His brother-in-law Pannalal lives at Ujjain and he holds a license for possessing a revolver. He had come to pay him a condolence visit and he believed that the cartridges were left behind by him. This was about the 20th of February. This explanation is not in one place but it is reached by putting the statement of the resp. in the Ct. and Pannalal's evidence together. That he gave this explanation to the police is borne out by the fact that the Police went to Ujjai-and interrogated Pannalal. If the honest intention of the resp. was to return these to Pannalal whom he believed to have left them behind the object of the possession was a lawful one. Pannalal has stated that the cartridges were not his. The question is not whether Pannalal did actually leave the cartridges in the hotel but whether the resp. found them in the hotel and believed that they might have belonged to Pannalal. This fact cannot be expected to be proved. There can only be his word for it. A Ct. may act on the explanation of an accused if it believes it to be reasonably true, see a. I. R. (20) 1933 p. C. 280 (sic) Narayana v. Emperor, 56 Mad. 231 at p. 241: (a. i. R. (20) 1933 Mad. 233 : 34 Cr. l. J. 481). The learned Ses. J. has believed, the explanation of the resp. to be true. 231 at p. 241: (a. i. R. (20) 1933 Mad. 233 : 34 Cr. l. J. 481). The learned Ses. J. has believed, the explanation of the resp. to be true. I cannot say that the explanation is not a reasonable one, Under the circumstances it would be improper to interfere with the judgment of acquittal by the learned Sess. J. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Mehta, J. :-I agree.