ORDER Chandra Prakash, J. - This is an application in revision against the order dt. 16-8-1971 of Sri Kishun Lal, I Temp. Civil and Sessions Judge, Deoria, dismissing the Appellant's appeal. 2. The prosecution story in brief, was as follows: Chokat and Buddhoo were cousin brothers and plot No. 331 lying in village Jarha jointly belonged to them. They had privately partitioned this plot. Each of them got half share in it. Mst. Sampatia is the daughter of Chokat aforesaid. Buddhoo transferred his share in the plot to Jhakari and Sukhari and they intended to take possession over the entire plot. Mst. Sampatia, daughter of Chokat, had been in possession over the share of her father. She had grown sugarcane crop in it at the time of incident. There was thus a dispute between Sukhari and Jhakari on the one hand and Smt. Sampatia on the other. On 27-12-1969 Jhakari and Sukhari with the help of Moti Chand Applicant and others began to plough the plot of Smt. Sampatia. Smt. Sampatia protested but the Applicant and his companions got ready to beat her. She, therefore, sent information to the SO, PS Nebua Naurangia. The SO Rameshwar Pathak (PW 4) went to the place of incident and arrested Jhakari, Jamuna, Sheo Bachan, Sheo Locan and Applicant Moti Chand u/s 151 Code of criminal Procedure. On search of the Applicant's person the Investigating Officer recovered the country made pistol Ex. 1 and the cartridges Exs. 2 to 4 from the possession of the Applicant. He registered a case against the Applicant and challaned him u/s 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 3. The Applicant pleaded not guilty. He denied the recovery of country made pistol Ex. 1 and cartridges Exs. 2 to 4 from his possession. 4. The prosecution examined four witnesses in support of its case including two of the recovery. The Applicant produced no defence. The learned Magistrate who tried the case, after considering the entire evidence on record found the Applicant guilty u/s 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to six months' R.I. 5. The Applicant then filed an appeal in the court below, which was dismissed. 6. The Applicant feeling aggrieved has now come in revision before me. 7. The learned Magistrate who tried the case, after considering the entire evidence on record found the Applicant guilty u/s 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to six months' R.I. 5. The Applicant then filed an appeal in the court below, which was dismissed. 6. The Applicant feeling aggrieved has now come in revision before me. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and after going through the record have come to the conclusion that this application in revision should fail. 8. The recovery of country made pistol Ex. 1 and the cartridges Exs. 2 to 4 in the circumstances set up by the prosecution, was narrated by Rameshwar Pathak (PW 4) SO, Nebua Naurangia and his testimony is corroborated by the recovery memo Ex. Ka. 1. 9. The testimony of Rameshwar Pathak (PW 4) was further corroborated by Ram Sunder Shukla (PW 1) and Aurangjeb (PW 2). They also witnessed the recovery memo Ex. Ka. 1. Ram Sunder Shukla (PW 1) and Aurangjeb (PW 2) had no motive of any kind to implicate the Applicant in this case falsely and there is hardly any reason to reject their testimony. Even the SO, Rameshwar Pathak (PW 4) had no motive to concoct a false case against the Applicant. It was therefore, established in the case that the pistol Ex. 1 and cartridges Exs. 2 to 4 were recovered from the possession of the Applicant. There is no suggestion that the Applicant holds any licence The Applicant was, therefore, rightly convicted u/s 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 10. It was contended on behalf of the Applicant that once Mst. Sampatia had sent information to the police about the dispute, the Applicant was not likely to keep the unlicensed arm with him. There was a dispute between the Applicant and his companions on the one hand and Smt. Sampatia on the other over the possession of the land. The Applicant went armed with a country made pistol for the anticipated fight and violence. There is no evidence on record to show that Smt. Sampatia sent information to the police to the knowledge of the Applicant. Further there is no evidence that the Applicant and his companions anticipated arrival of the police. The argument advanced on behalf of the Applicant, therefore, falls to the ground. 11. There is no evidence on record to show that Smt. Sampatia sent information to the police to the knowledge of the Applicant. Further there is no evidence that the Applicant and his companions anticipated arrival of the police. The argument advanced on behalf of the Applicant, therefore, falls to the ground. 11. It was nest contended that before making search of the Applicant's person the SO did not offer to give a search of his own. I was not referred to any law or authority for the proposition that while making a search of the person of an individual the police Officer must give search of his own. 12. Lastly it was urged that the bundle containing the pistol and cartridges recovered, although sealed on the spot, did not contain the signatures of the witnesses. It would have certainly been better if the signatures of the witnesses were obtained on the sealed bundle but absence of the signatures of the witnesses on the sealed bundle is not fatal to the case. As a matter of fact the non-sealing of the bundle even has not been regarded as fatal to a case by our own High Court Division Bench ruling State of U.P. v. Dhanwan 1964 AWR 443 . My attention on behalf of the Applicant was drawn to come observations in the ruling in State v. Banwari 1959 ILR (Raj.) 107 but since the view of our own High Court is different, as noted above, the observations of the Rajasthan High Court do not affect the merits of this case. 13. The application in revision is dismissed. The Applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence a warded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled.