JUDGMENT C.D. Parekh, J. - These two connected appeals, viz. Government Appeal No. 2654 of 1965 filed by the State and Criminal Appeal No. 2008 of 1965 filed by Trijugi Narain, arise out of the same judgment and order dated September 18, 1965 passed by Sri S. C. Tyagi, Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur-Etawah at Kanpur. By the said order Trijugi Narain has been convicted under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act as also under Section 302 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on the first count and to imprisonment for life on the second count, while Ram Nath, Shri Kishan, Goreylal and Prabhu Dayal have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.. In Criminal Appeal No. 2008 of 1965 Trijugi Narain has challenged his convictions and sentences, while the State has preferred the Government Appeal against the acquittal of the aforesaid four respondents. As common arguments have been advanced in both of the appeals, we would dispose of these two appeals by a common judgment. 2. The allegations which led to the prosecution of Trijugi Narain appellant and the respondents in the Government Appeal were as follows. Ramnath, Shri Kishan and one Sheo Balak (since dead) belonged to the same family and were cousins. The daughter of the maternal uncle of Goreylal was married to Prabhu Dayal. Trijugi Narain is said to be of the family of Goreylal. Ramnath, Shri Kishan and Sheo Balak had some joint agricultural holdings including plot No. 360, Sheo Balak, undersome private arrangement between the co-sharers, was given exclusive possession of plot No. 360 besides other plots and it is stated that he cultivated the same, although the Khata remained joint. After the death of Sheo Balak his sister Smt. Shanti Devi as his heir came into exclusive cultivatory possession of all those plots which had been in the exclusive possession of Sheo Balak, including pot No. 360. Smt. Shanti Devi sold her ?rd share in the joint Khata to one Rama Kant P.W. 7 ( a resident of Nonari Bahadurpur) and Manni Lal alias Maniya (father of Rajaram (P.W. 1), a resident of Kurmi Newada) by means of a sale deed (Ex. Ka-40) dated June 29, 1964. Smt. Shanti Devi sold her ?rd share in the joint Khata to one Rama Kant P.W. 7 ( a resident of Nonari Bahadurpur) and Manni Lal alias Maniya (father of Rajaram (P.W. 1), a resident of Kurmi Newada) by means of a sale deed (Ex. Ka-40) dated June 29, 1964. As she was in actual physical possession of plot No. 360 she handed over possession to the vendees aforesaid on the execution of the sale deed and thus the vendees came into possession of plot No. 360 besides other plots. Thereafter, it is stated, the vendees cultivated plot No. 360 and raised a paddy crop in it. Ramnath and Shri Kishan, being the joint Khata holders of the land, it appears, did not like this transaction and they filed a suit in the court of the Munsif and obtained an ex parte injunction against the vendees restraining them from disturbing their possession. The injunction order was served on the vendees on November 15, 1964. Mutation proceedings had also been taken up on the basis of the sale deed in the revenue court and November 17, 1.964 was the date fixed in that case at Sheoli, the tahsil headquarters. On the night of November 17, 1964 at about 9 p.m., when Rajaram P.W. 1, the son Manilal (vendee), was returning to his village from Nanori Bahadurpur, P.W. 14 Dulla met him on the way and informed him that the paddy crop of his field (which was almost ripe by that time) was being cut by some thieves. Raja Ram at once went to the nearby village Baragaon and contacted its Pradhan Kirat Singh P.W. 3, who advised him to collect some men and then to go to the field concerned. Rajaram, therefore, collected Mohanlal P.W. 11, Jeet Bahadur Singh and Manna Faqir (not examined) from village Baragaon and proceeded towards the field. They reached village Nanori Bahadurpur which fell in their way and from there Rajaram took along with him Ramnath P.W. 4 and Vijai Bahadur Singh (the victim of this case). When this party came out of the village Abadi they met Jagdish and Sheoram (not examined) and they were also taken along by Rajaram. Reaching the canal culvert, Rajaram also met P.W. 9 Madholal and Ram Swarup (not examined) and these two also joined Raja Ram and his party. When this party came out of the village Abadi they met Jagdish and Sheoram (not examined) and they were also taken along by Rajaram. Reaching the canal culvert, Rajaram also met P.W. 9 Madholal and Ram Swarup (not examined) and these two also joined Raja Ram and his party. All these persons reached plot No. 360 and there they saw that 20 to 25 persons were cutting the paddy crop. Rajaram and Vijai Bahadur Singh shouted and asked who were committing the theft of the crop. Hearing this shout Ramnath and Shri Kishan (armed with lathis), Prabhu Dayal (armed with a Kanta), Goreylal (armed with a spear) and Trijugi Narain (armed with a pistol) proceeded towards Rajaram and his party. When they were at some distance Rajaram asked them why they were committing the theft. In reply Trijugi Narain told Rajaram and his party to run away from the place or else they would be killed. Vijai Bahadur Singh thereupon retorted that they were committing theft and in addition were brazen-facedly threatening to kill them. Ramnath, Shri Kishan, Prabhu Dayal and Goreylal then exclaimed `Maro Sale Ko, Jis se goli aarpaar ho jai'. At this Trijugi Narain aimed his pistol at Vijai Bahadur Singh and fired, hitting him in in the chest. Vijai Bahadur Singh fell down and died. Two more shots were fired by Trijugi Narain, on which Rajaram and his party fled away. On reaching his house Rajaram wrote out the report Ex. K,-4 but did not proceed to the police station on account of fear of the miscreants in the night. He went to the police station next morning (November 18, 1964) and lodged the first information report there at 7.30 a.m. The Station Officer S. 1. Chandresh Singh P.W. 26 took up the investigation. He reached the scene of occurrence at about 9.30 .am. on November 18, 1964. He found the dead body of Vijai Bahadur Singh lying to the west of plot No. 360. He despatched the dead body for post mortem examination after completing the usual formalities. Blood was found on the ground beneath the dead body. Two empty cartridges marked Ex. 6 and a Kanta Ex. 5 were also found near the dead body of Vijai Bahadur Singh. Four sickles Ex. 2, one spear Ex. 3, 7 lathis Ex. He despatched the dead body for post mortem examination after completing the usual formalities. Blood was found on the ground beneath the dead body. Two empty cartridges marked Ex. 6 and a Kanta Ex. 5 were also found near the dead body of Vijai Bahadur Singh. Four sickles Ex. 2, one spear Ex. 3, 7 lathis Ex. 4,3 logs of wood, some threshed paddy and 4 gunny bags were also found and were taken possession of by the police. Malkhey Ram, father of Trijugi Narain was contacted and from his possession his licenced pistol Ex. 1 and 6 live cartridges, together with his licence, were also seized by the police. Ramnath, Trijugi Narain, Shri Kishan and Prabhu Dayal were arrested at about 3-30 p.m. on November 18, 1964 in the village. 3. Dr. B.C. Jain, P.W. 2 performed the post mortem examination of the dead body of Vijai Bahadur Singh at 12.15 p.m. on November 19, 1964. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of Vijai Bahadur Singh: (1) Gunshot wound of entry " x " over the sternum between the second and the third ribs, about " to the left of the medial line. The bullet had pierced through the lungs, pleura, pericardium and the left atrium. (2) Gunshot wound of exit 3/10" X 3/10" on the back left side in the 6th intercostal space near the vertebral end. The 7th rib was broken. No tattooing, blackening or scorching was detected on the margins of these wounds. The death in the opinion of the doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the aforesaidn injuries. The doctor further opined that the injuries could be caused by the pistol being fired from a distance of about 10 to 15 steps; that in any case the shot in this case was fired from more than six feet; and that these injuries were sufficient to cause instantaneous death. 4. The empty cartridges Ex. 6 along with the pistol Ex. 1 were sent to the Firearms Expert Rameshwar Prasad Rastogi P.W. 24 who was of the opinion that both the cartridges had been discharged from the pistol Ex. 1. 5. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and stated that the incident did not take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 6 along with the pistol Ex. 1 were sent to the Firearms Expert Rameshwar Prasad Rastogi P.W. 24 who was of the opinion that both the cartridges had been discharged from the pistol Ex. 1. 5. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and stated that the incident did not take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Ram Nath and Shri Kishan admitted their presence at the spot, while Trijugi Narain, Prabhu Dayal and Goreylal denied their presence. Trijugi Narain stated that on the day of the incident he was away in his Sasural; that when he returned on November 18, at about 11 a.m. or 11.30 he was informed that his father had been arrested by the police; that first he went to the place where his father was sitting in police custody and then followed his father to the police station; and that when they reached the police station he was arrested there. He added that the case was concocted at the instance of Raghunath Singh, who had fought a number of litigation with him before, Prabhu Dayal stated the Raja Raghunath had done pairvi in a case under Section 145 Cr.PC with respect to his house and in that case Rajaram, Kirat Singh and Munshilal had filed affidavits against him and thus he has been involved in this case on account of enmity. Gorelal also stated that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of Raja Raghunath Singh, Kirat Singh and Jeet Bahadur Singh, with whom he had had enmity for quite a long time. He maintained that he was not present at the place of occurrence on the date and at the time stated by the prosecution and that he was at Kanpur at that time at the house of one Narbada Prasad Awasthi. He added that on November 20, 1964 he attended the court of Sri Kailash Chandra, Magistrate, in connection with another case started by the Sheoli police but the police did not arrest him at that time; and that subsequently when he came to know of this case against him, he himself surrendered in court. Ram Nath and Shri Kishan, as already stated above, admitted that they were present at the time of the incident at the place of the occurrence, but they gave a counter version of the incident. Ram Nath and Shri Kishan, as already stated above, admitted that they were present at the time of the incident at the place of the occurrence, but they gave a counter version of the incident. They stated that they had a joint Khata with Sheo Balak, who had ?rd share in the agricultural holding; that the said ?rd share of Sheo Balak was sold by Smt. Shanti Devi on June 29, 1964 to Rama Kant and Mannilal; and that the vendees did not get actual cultivatory possession over plot No. 360 and over other plots, as they (Ramnath and Shri Kishan) were in possession of the same and had sown the paddy crop in plot No. 360. They also asserted that Sheo Balak too had not been in actual cultivatory possession of the plots. They denied the raising of the paddy crop by the vendees. They further stated that Raja Raghunath Singh had a party of adherents in that locality. According to these accused, on November 16, 1964, when they had gone to reap their paddy crop from plot No. 360, Mannilal, Rama Kant, Raja Ram and others scolded them whereupon a report was lodged by them at the police station on November 17, 1964 in the early hours of the morning. Ramnath stated that in the late evening, when he was returning from the court, he came to know that 50 or 60 persons were cutting away his paddy crop from plot No. 360; that he approached the village Sabhapati and others, but they refused to extend their help; that Malkhey Ram, however, volunteered to help him; that he and Malkhey Ram and Shri Kishan reached plot No. 360. where he found that 50 or 60 persons were cutting the paddy crop; that he asked them not to do so, whereupon those persons advanced towards them; that at this juncture Malkhey Ram fired twice into the air to scare them away, but they continued advancing towards them; that from about 6 or 7 feet away Vijai Bahadur Singh shouted `Maro Salon Ko'; and that at this Malkhey Ram fired a third shot which struck Vijai Bahadur Singh, who fell down and died and the other miscreants ran away. According to Ramnath he himself, Malkhey Ram and Shri Kishan kept a watch over the dead body throughout the night till the Sub-Inspector reached there the next day. According to Ramnath he himself, Malkhey Ram and Shri Kishan kept a watch over the dead body throughout the night till the Sub-Inspector reached there the next day. Ramnath and Shri Kishan maintained that with the help of Raja Raghunath Singh and in collusion with the police this false case had been concocted against them. They stated that the witnesses belonged to the party of Raja Raghunath Singh and were under his influence and control. 6. The prosecution examined 26 witnesses out of whom Rajaram P.W.1, Ramnath PW 4, Madholal PW 9 and Mohanlal PW 11 claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. 7. To support its version of the incident the defence also examined eye-witnesses and tried to prove that it was Malkhey Ram and not Trijugi Narain who had shot at Vijai Bahadur singh and not in the manner stated by the prosecution witnesses. The defence also filed a number of documents show that Raja Raghunath Singh had party; that he was inimical to Malkhey Ram and Trijugi Narain; and that eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution belonged to the party of Raja Raghunath Singh and were inimical to Trijugi Narain and others involved the case. 8. On behalf of Trijugi Narain (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2008 of 1965) learned counsel submitted that since the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution witnesses examined in this case were all partisan and that the possession over the disputed plot claimed by the complainant was doubtful, the version of the said prosecution witnesses with regard to the incident should not have been relied upon for convicting the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that neither the complainant nor his men were in actual physical possession of the disputed plot and they had not sown the paddy crop. According to the learned counsel, even accepting that Ramnath, Shri Kishan, Trijugi Narain etc. were harvesting the paddy crop of plot No. 360, they were doing so because they were in actual possession and the crop had been sown by them. According to the learned counsel, even accepting that Ramnath, Shri Kishan, Trijugi Narain etc. were harvesting the paddy crop of plot No. 360, they were doing so because they were in actual possession and the crop had been sown by them. Learned counsel submitted that inspite of the Injunction order issued by a competent court, the complainant and his party went to the disputed plot armed with deadly weapons and were about to attack the persons who were carrying on lawful acts; and that apprehending that the property and persons of Ramnath, Shri Kishan, Trijugi Narain and others were in danger, the accused in these circumstances, in the exercise of the right of self defence of person and property, were compelled to fire at the complainant and his party to stop them. It was submitted that Vijai Bahadur Singh had a Kanta Ex. 5 which he was about to wield on Trijugi Narain, whereupon the latter fired at him to protect himself, learned counsel submitted that in the circumstances of the case the act of Trijugi Narain was justified. 9. It was pointed out from the evidence on record that Sheo Balak, the predecessor-in-title of Smt. Shanti Devi was not in the exclusive possession of plot No. 360, which remained the joint property of Ramnath and Shri Kishan. According to the learned counsel there was nothing to prove that there had been any private arrangement allotting plot No. 360 to the exclusive possession of Sheo Balak or that Smt. Shanti Devi had been in exclusive possession thereof. Learned counsel submitted that in this case there was a presumption of joint possession of the plot in dispute on the basis of the revenue records as also on the basis of oral evidence. We were taken through the finding of the learned trial Judge to the effect that in all probability Ramnath and Shri Kishan were in cultivatory possession of the plot on the day of the incident and that the possession was not with Rama Kant and Mannilal. On the basis of this finding learned counsel urged that the benefit of the doubt should have been extended to Trijugi Narain as well, even if he was found responsible for firing at Vijai Bahadur Singh and causing his death. On the basis of this finding learned counsel urged that the benefit of the doubt should have been extended to Trijugi Narain as well, even if he was found responsible for firing at Vijai Bahadur Singh and causing his death. Learned counsel contended that even if that specific plea was not taken by Trijugi Narain (he having put forward the defence that it was not he but Malkhey Ram who fired at Vijai Bahadur Singh), this would not affect the defence when the facts and circumstances of the case clearly made out a case of self-defence of person and property. 10. We agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for Trijugi Narain. From the evidence on record it is established that Ramnath and Shri Kishan were in possession of plot No. 360 on the day of the incident and even prior to it. The claim of the prosecution that Sheo Balak or after his death his sister Smt. Shanti Devi had been in exclusive possession of the plot is nothing but a made up claim fabricated for the purposes of this case. The evidence on record also negatives such a claim as made by Rama Kant PW 7 and Rajaram PW 1. The prosecution has tried to prove the possession of Rama Kant and Mannilal by oral and documentary evidence. It has relied upon the testimony of Rajaram PW 1, Kirat Singh PW 3, Ramnath PW 4, Rama Kant PW 7 and Dulla PW 14. These persons, as observed earlier, are partisan witnesses and belong to the party of Raja Raghunath Singh who had animus and long drawn litigation with Malkhey Ram, Trijugi Narain and others. The prosecution witnesses have gone to the extent of stating that they had actually seen Mannilal and Rama Kant ploughing sowing the disputed paddy in plot No. 360. The witnesses could hardly have had the occasion to see this plot of land being cultivated or sown by any person, for their fields are far away from the disputed plot and they have not been able to explain how they came there at the time of the ploughing and sowing in the disputed field. Smt. Shanti Devi had transferred ?rd share in the property through the sale deed Ex. Ka 40 with the usual recital that the possession of the property sold had been delivered to the vendees. Smt. Shanti Devi had transferred ?rd share in the property through the sale deed Ex. Ka 40 with the usual recital that the possession of the property sold had been delivered to the vendees. It has been admitted by PW 23, the lekhpal, that at the time of the earlier partal he had found the joint possession of Shri Kishan, Ramnath and Smt. Shanti Devi on plot No. 360. How, therefore, could the lekhpal record the separate possession of the vendees on August 23, 1964, when Smt. Shanti Devi had earlier been found in joint possession with Ramnath and Shri Kishan? From the evidence of the lekhpal it is also clear that the earlier revenue records also indicated the joint possession of Shri Kishan, Ramnath and Sheo Balak. The case set up by the prosecution about some mutual arrangement by which Sheo Balak got separate possession over plot No. 360 is completely ruled out. The entry made by the Lekhpal while recording the name of the vendees on August 23, 1964 is nothing but a wrong entry, deliberately made in order to show a change of possession, contrary to the actual facts. The Lekhpal in his statement admitted that he had not complied with all the rules contained in the Land Records Manual for effecting the change of name and recording of possession in the khasra. He should have prepared, on finding a change in possession, a consolidated list of such entries and then should have handed over the relevant extract to Ramnath, Shri Kishan and also to Smt. Shanti Devi, as envisaged by Rr. A-80 and A-81 of Part I of Ch. V-A of the Land Records Manual. It appears that he shelved all these rules and the procedure and recorded the change according to his own sweet will, thus giving a handle to Rama Kant and Mannilal to assert their possession against Ramnath and Shri Kishan. We agree with the finding of the learned trial Judge that these entries were surreptitiously made by the Lekhpal behind the back of the actual occupants and that it was his mischief that contributed to this unfortunate incident. The Lekhpal has further admitted that he made the Khasra entries in favour of the vendees on the basis of information furnished by the Pradhan viz. Kirat Singh PW 3, who is nothing but a partisan witness. The Lekhpal has further admitted that he made the Khasra entries in favour of the vendees on the basis of information furnished by the Pradhan viz. Kirat Singh PW 3, who is nothing but a partisan witness. The evidence relied upon by the defence is not only superior in quality but is supported by the weight of probabilities; and it can safely be said that Ram Nath and Shri Kishan were in actual cultivatory possession of plot No. 360 on the date of the incident. 11. The defence examined PW 14 Malkhey Ram (father of Trijugi Narain) and DW 7 Lalloo, who has his field only two fields away from the disputed plot. Lalloo has stated that the actual cultivatory possession over the disputed plot was that of Ramnath and Shri Kishan at the relevant time and the paddy crop in question was raised by them. Lalloo is apparently an independent witness. He has no animus that might lead him to depose against the prosecution, nor has he any concern with the accused persons. The irrigation slips Ex. Kha-35 issued in September 1964 and Ex. Kha-36 issued in the year 1963 show that the field in dispute was irrigated by Ramnath, Shri Kishan and Smt. Shanti Devi. This establishes the fact that the disputed field was in the joint possession of Ramnath, Shri Kishan and Smt. Shanti Devi. Smt Shanti Devi is a married woman and lives in another village. She had not been examined in this case. The investigation officer has stated that he tried to contact Smt. Shanti Devi but he could not meet her. In these circumstances and on the basis of the evidence on record we hold that Smt. Shanti Devi was not in separate cultivatory possession of the disputed plot prior to her executing the sale deed Ex. Ka 40 in favour of Rama Kant and Mannilal. The possession over this plot remained joint and since she was living elsewhere she thought to transfer her ?rd share in that joint property without obtaining cultivatory possession. It has rightly been asserted on behalf of the defence that a day previous to the incident, when Ramnath and Shri Kishan had been to the disputed plot to harvest the paddy sown by them, they were threatened ` by Rama Kant and others, for which a report was lodged at the police station. It has rightly been asserted on behalf of the defence that a day previous to the incident, when Ramnath and Shri Kishan had been to the disputed plot to harvest the paddy sown by them, they were threatened ` by Rama Kant and others, for which a report was lodged at the police station. From the evidence on record it is also established that on the date and at the time of the incident Ramnath and Shri Kishan along with Trijugi Narain and others went to the disputed field to cut the paddy crop by night to avoid a show-down with the other side; and the evidence on record suggests that PW 1 Raja Ram along with the deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh and others went to the field, asserting their title on the basis of the wrong entries made by the lekhpal, and thus the incident took place. The prosecution in this case has not been able to explain the recovery of the Kanta Ex. 5 lying by the side of Vijai Bahadur Singh deceased, If Vijai Bahadur Singh was armed with the Kanta Ex. 5, for which there is sufficient evidence on record, and if the deceased had gone to help the complainant's party, there is ample force in the argument advanced on behalf of the defence that he might have tried to use the Kanta Ex. 5, on which Trijugi Narain in self-defence fired at him, causing his death. 12. It is true that Trijugi Narain in his statement under Section 342 Cr. P.C. denied having been present at the scene of occurrence or having caused the injuries and the death of Vijai Bahadur Singh, but the suggestions made in the cross-examination of the witnesses show that he also took up the alter native plea of self-defence. The necessary basis for the plea having been laid in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, it was not necessary for Trijugi Narain to have specifically pleaded self-defence. It is well settled that I even if the accused does not plead self defence, it is open to the Court to consider such a plea if the facts and circumstances of the case make out such a case. The first question, therefore, that arises in the appeal of Trijugi Narain is as to who was in actual cultivatory possession of the plot in dispute on the day of the occurrence. The first question, therefore, that arises in the appeal of Trijugi Narain is as to who was in actual cultivatory possession of the plot in dispute on the day of the occurrence. We have already held that Ramnath and Shri Kishan were in joint possession of that field along with Smt. Shanti Devi and that, Smt. Shanti Devi being away from the village, these two persons in all probability were cultivating the same and had raised the paddy crop in dispute and obtained an injunction order in their favour against Rama Kant and Mannilal and with the help of Trijugi Narain and others were cutting the crop when the complainant's party reached there, asserting its right. Trijugi Narain had a right to defend himself when he was about to be attacked with a Kanta by the deceased Vijai Bahadur Singh. If in the altercation which ensued between Trijugi Narain and Vijai Bahadur Singh. Trijugi Narain fired the pistol of his father which he was carrying on the spot, in our opinion he cannot be said to have had any intention to commit murder. The prosecution evidence supplemented by the evidence adduced by the defence makes the prosecution story of intentional murder doubtful and we are satisfied that there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of Trijugi Narain. 13. Learned counsel for Trijugi Narain has also argued that the appellant is not liable to be convicted under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act. His contention is that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to add the charge under Section 25 (1) (a) and to try Trijugi Narain for that charge. From the record it is apparent that this appellant was not committed to the court of session for trial for an offence under Section 25(l) (a) of the Indian Arms Act. Section 193, sub-clause (1), Cr. P.C. reads thus: "193 (1). Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the accused has been committed to it by a Magistrate duly empowered in that behalf." Section 227 Cr.P.C. authorises the Sessions court to add or alter any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Ordinarily the Sessions court may, therefore, add any charge if in its opinion the facts on record justify the framing of such a charge and disclose any additional offence that may appear to have been committed by the accused standing his trial before the court of Sessions. Section 230 Cr.P.C. however, reads thus: "230. If the offence stated in the new or altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the new or altered charge is founded." The record does not disclose that any sanction for the prosecution for an offence under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act was ever obtained. Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act reads thus: "39. No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate." Section 25(1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act read thus: "25(1) (a). Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of Section 3 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." The relevant portion of Section 3 of the Indian Arms Act reads thus: "3. No person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder." Trijugi Narain has been convicted in this case because he had no licence to have in his possession or carry the pistol of his father Malkhey Ram with which he fired at Vijai Bahadur Singh. He could have only been prosecuted for such an offence if the prosecution was sanctioned by the District Magistrate as envisaged by Section 39 of the Indian Arms Act. No prosecution was instituted in this case against Trijugi Narain in respect of an offence under Section 3 of the Arms Act, nor was any commitment made to the court of session for that offence nor was any sanction obtained as required under Section 230 Cr.P.C. 14. No prosecution was instituted in this case against Trijugi Narain in respect of an offence under Section 3 of the Arms Act, nor was any commitment made to the court of session for that offence nor was any sanction obtained as required under Section 230 Cr.P.C. 14. In view of the legal position as discussed above, the learned Sessions Judge, in the absence of sanction, had no jurisdiction to convict Trijugi Narain for an offence under Section 3 read with Section 25(1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act. 15. In the result we are of the opinion that the appeal of Trijugi Narain succeeds. It is, accordingly, allowed in toto. Trijugi Narain is given the benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. Since there was no valid prosecution or trial for the offence under Section 25(1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act, the order of his conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge thereunder is set aside. Trijugi Narain is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other connection. 16. Learned Assistant Government Advocate appearing in support of Government Appeal No. 2654 of 1965 urged that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in acquitting Ramnath, Shri Kishan, Goreylal and Prabhu Dayal. We have perused the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and have also gone through the evidence on record and we find that there was ample justification for the learned Sessions Judge to have come to the conclusion he has arrived at and he has given good reasons for their acquittal. The respondents were charged with having committed a riot and being members of an unlawful assembly along with Trijugi Narain at the time when Vijai Bahadur Singh was shot at and killed by Trijugi Narain. In view of our finding on the question of possession that not only Ramnath and Shri Kishan but also other persons who had gathered there to help them in harvesting the paddy crop were doing so in a lawful manner, these respondents cannot be held guilty for the offences with which they were charged. No overt act has been pointed out against them. No overt act has been pointed out against them. The words which these respondents were said to have uttered at that time when Trijugi Narain fired at Vijai Bahadur Singh could not have been uttered by them and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that at no point of time and at no stage was there any unlawful assembly. As we have already acquitted Trijugi Narain of the charge of shooting, these persons cannot be said to have committed any crime, for no constructive liability can be laid on their shoulders. 17. In the result the Government Appeal fails and it is dismissed. We maintain the acquittal of these four respondents.