JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition for revision of the appellate judgement of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, dated October 12,1971. The learned Judge has, by his judgement, upheld the conviction and sentence of Gurcharan Singh for an offence under section 25 of the Arms. Act. 2. It was alleged that while he was under arrest during the course of the investigation of a case for the alleged commission of an offence under section 392 Indian Penal Code, the petitioner gave information Ex. P.3 to Station House Officer Mukhtiyar Singh P.W. 2, on November 30, 1968, regarding a pistol and three cartridges in his possession and got them recovered the same day vide memorandum Ex. P.1. As he did not possess a licence, he was prosecuted for an offence under section 25 of the Arms Act, and has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. It default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the search which was made in the house of Gurucharan Singh on November 30, 1968, in pursuance of the aforesaid information, was not valid as it did not conform to the requirement of section 103 Cr. P.C. It has been pointed out that only one witness, namely, Ram Singh P.W. 1, was called upon to attend and witness the search even though it was the requirement of section 103 (1) Cr. P.C. that two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality should have been required to so so. The learned counsel has made a reference to Bishnath Rai v. Rex, AIR 1950 All. 147 and State v. Raijibhai Chaturbhai Solanki, AIR 1960 Gujarat 24 in support of his argument. 4. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has argued, on the other hand, that the recovery of the pistol and the cartridges was made in pursuance of the information which had been given by accused Gurucharan Singh and there was no occasion for a search within the meaning of section 103 Cr. P.C. so that it was not really necessary for the investigating officer to call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the recovery. P.C. so that it was not really necessary for the investigating officer to call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the recovery. It is not necessary for me to examine whether the recovery fell within the purview of section 103 Cr. P.C. because, even it is assumed that this was so, I do not find it possible to take the view that the "search" became illegal simply because one more respectable inhabitant of the locality was not called upon to attend and witness it. It will be enough in this connection, to refer to the decision in Swami Dayal v. State, AIR 1953 All 353 , Sunder Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 411 , Radha Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 822 and Tej Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., 1970 (3) SCC 779 . There is, thus, no force in the first argument of the learned counsel 'or the petitioner'. 5. It has next been argued that the solitary statement of S.H.O. Mukhtiyar Singh P.W. 2 is not sufficient to prove the alleged recovery of the pistol and the cartridges from the possession of the accused as Ram Singh P.W. 1, who was called upon to attend and witness the search, has not supported the allegation regarding the recovery. It has been urged that the court should not place reliance on the statement of Sub-Inspector Mukhtiyar Singh for the further reason that the accused had examined Gudu D.W.1 to disprove the alleged recovery. 6. It appears that a similar argument was advanced in the court of appeal, but it failed to convince the learned Judge of that court. I have gone through the statement of Sub-Inspector Mukhtiyar Singh P.W. 2, along with the statements of Ram Singh P.W. 1 and Gudu D.W.1, and I do not find that there is any justification for disagreeing with the view which has been taken by the court of appeal that the statement of Sub Inspector Mukhtiyar Singh P.W. 2 is quite sufficient to prove the fact of the alleged recovery and that its veracity has not been affected by whatever hasbeen stated by Ram Singh P.W. 1. or Godu D.W. 1. A reading of the statement of Ram Singh P.W. 1 shows that while he has admitted his signature on memorandum Ex. or Godu D.W. 1. A reading of the statement of Ram Singh P.W. 1 shows that while he has admitted his signature on memorandum Ex. p.1 which evidences the recovery of the pistol and cartridges, he has not supported the version of the prosecution that the recovery was made from the possession of the accused. He has in fact stated that he had not read the memorandum. The statement of the witness is quite unconvincing for there was no reason for him to sign the memorandum without reading it, and it has rightly been rejected by the two courts below. So far as, Godu D.W.1 is concerned, his statement is vague and cannot be said to disprove the correctness of the statement of Sub-Inspector Mukhtiyar Singh. The witness has admitted that he works as a labourer with the accused, and there is nothing wrong if his evidence has not been found to be satisfactory. 7. An ancillary argument has been made that the recovery has not been proved to have been made from the exclusive possession of the accused and reference in this connection has been made to Chitta and others v. Emperor, AIR 1947 Oudh 114 and Norendra Nath Mazumdar v. State, AIR 1951 Cal 140 . But this argument is also untenable because Sub-Inspector mukhtiyar Singh P.W. 2 has stated that the recovery was made by the accused from his residential "Kotha" and his statement to that effect has not been shaken in cross-examination. The witness has stated further that the house of the accused was separate and that his children lived separately. No evidence has been led to prove that the room from which the recovery was made was not in the exclusive possession of the accused. I have gone through the statement of Ram Singh P.W. 1 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this argument also, but it is of no avail because the witness has stated that the accused and his father and brothers had four houses. The statement is thus quite inadequate and laconic. In the view I have taken of the evidence bearing on the point, the two cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to him. 8. The statement is thus quite inadequate and laconic. In the view I have taken of the evidence bearing on the point, the two cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to him. 8. It has lastly been argued that the sentence which has been imposed on the petitioner is very severe and it has been urged that there was no reason why he should not have been given the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. There is however nothing on the record to show that, looking to the nature of the case or the character of the accused, there was any justification for giving him that benefit. Even otherwise, the sentence cannot be said to be servere. 9. As there is no force in this revision petition, it is dismissed. The accused is on bail and shall surrender to serve out the sentence. The District Magistrate may be asked to carry out the order and to report compliance. *******