JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals, one filed by the accused Ramphool from jail and the other represented appeal filed by the accused Gopi have been directed against the judgment dated December 4, 1974 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City whereby he convicted the accused Ramphool under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years under section 25 of the Arms Act and for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 400/- under 5.27 of the Arms Act, in default of the payment of which he was ordered to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused Gopi was found guilty of the offence punishable under sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and a fine of Rs. 200/-, on each count. In default of the payment of fine he was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on each Count. However, the two other accused Ram Singh and Kalyan, tried along with the above mentioned two convicted accused were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. 2. Prior to April 25, 1973 accused Ramphool was an outlaw required in five criminal cognizable cases, pending against him, the first information reports of these cases are Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 5, on the record. 3. On the intervening night of 25th and 26th April, 1973 at 8 p.m. he had an encounter with the police party in the forest of Chuli. In the course of the encounter accused Ramphool fired a pistol Ex. Aattbe police party. At that time accused Ram Singh and Kalyan (acquitted by the trial court) were also with him. In response to the fire made by Ramphool the police party also fired in self-defence, whereupon the accused Ramphool threw away the pistol and jumped into hie well. Ramphool was arrested the pistol and the empty cartridges were recovered. The first information report Ex. P. 15 of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Gangapur City and case No. 63 of 1973 Was registered against the accused Ramphool under section 3/27 of the Arms Act. Ramphool was arrested the pistol and the empty cartridges were recovered. The first information report Ex. P. 15 of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Gangapur City and case No. 63 of 1973 Was registered against the accused Ramphool under section 3/27 of the Arms Act. During the course of investigation accused Ramphool expressed his desire to get a 12 bore gun recovered at his instance from the place of its hiding. The information memo is Ex. P. 10. In consequence of this information gun No. 238/TR. USA was recovered from the forest of Tajpur on the pointing of the accused from the place where it was concealed by him. This gun was a licensed gun and the accused Gopi is license holder of this gun. The license of the gun is Ex. 14. Gopi was arrested, and after usual investigation a challan was submitted in the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Gangapur City against the four accused. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate committed all the four accused to face their trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4. The prosecution examined five witnesses viz. PW 1 Durga Prasad, PW 2 Virendra Singh, PW 3 Ram Chander Yadav. PW 4 Ramhetlal and PW 5 Manoharlal. The accused persons denied their complicity in the crime. The accused Gopi produced DW 1 Chatru and DW 2 Ghisya in support of his defence. The other accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found both the accused-appellants guilty. He convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants has vehemently challenged the finding of the trial court and the learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the judgment of the trial court. PW 4 Ramhetlal has stated that on the fateful night he was Station House Officer, Gangapur City. He along with Circle Officer, Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent, of Police and the police party including the Jawans of R. A. C. went in search of Ramphool. While searching him they encircled him in the forest of Chuli. The accused Ramphool fired from a country-made pistol (Katta) at the police party and the police party also fired in self-defence. While trying to escape the accused-appellant Ramphool threw away the pistol and jumped into the well. While searching him they encircled him in the forest of Chuli. The accused Ramphool fired from a country-made pistol (Katta) at the police party and the police party also fired in self-defence. While trying to escape the accused-appellant Ramphool threw away the pistol and jumped into the well. The accused Ramphool was arrested and the pistol and the empty cartridges were recovered. He further stated that the recovery memo is Ex. P. 7/1. The arrest memo of the accused Ramphool is Ex. P. 8. PW 4 Ramhetlal further stated that accused Ramphool while in police custody expressed his desire to get a 12 bore gun recovered from the place of its hiding in the forest near the hillock of Tajpur. According to this witness the accused further stated that he would get the weapon recovered from the place where he had concealed it. In consequence of this information the gun Art. 1 was recovered and the recovery memo is Ex. P. 11. He arrested the accused Gopi on May 3, 1973 vide arrest memo Ex. P. 13. The accused after his arrest produced the license Ex. P. 14. This witness has been corroborated by PW 3 Ramchander and PW 1 Durga Prasad. 6. I have gone through the statements of all the five witnesses and have considered the contradictions appearing in their statements pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants. Nothing has been brought out in their cross-examination on the basis of which the veracity of the statements of these witnesses can be doubted. They had stood the test of long cross-examination. I uphold the finding of the trial court that the accused Ramphool used the pistol Art 1A during the course of encounter and fired a shot with it at the police party. As there is positive evidence regarding use of the pistol by the accused Ramphool before it was seized from the possession of the accused, it can be safely said that he was carrying the weapon with the intention of using it as a weapon for unlawful purpose. I uphold the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the accused-appellant Ramphool under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. His appeal stands dismissed. 7. I uphold the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the accused-appellant Ramphool under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. His appeal stands dismissed. 7. As regards accused-appellant Gopi, the learned counsel has urged that there is no evidence to hold that the gun Art. 1 was delivered by his client Gopi to Ramphool with an intention to enabk Tlamphool to use the same for an unlawful purpose. The Learned Additional Government Advocate has urged that it is rather impossible to have an eye-witness in such matters who might have seen the accused handing over the gun lo an outlaw because such handing-over does not take place in the day light. Admittedly the gun Art. I is a licensed gun and the license of this gun was in the name of accused-appellant Gopi. It was his duty to keep it most carefully and it could not have gone into the hands of Ramphool until and unless the accused-appellant Gopi himself transferred it or got it transferred through the ago any of some other person. Accused-appellant Ramphool was an outlaw required in a number of cases, and as the accused-appellant Gopi has failed to explain as to how his licensed gun came in possession of Ramphool, in the common course of human conduct, it should be presumed that accused-appellant Gopi transferred it to Ramphool with an intention that it may be used for an unlawful purpose. In the alternative he argued that the accused-appellant Gopi is admittedly a license holder of the gun Art. 1. The gun is required to be kept carefully and normally it cannot go away without it's absence being noticed. Breach of the terms of the license itself amounts to an. offence, punishable under section 30 of the Arms Act. 8. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced by the parties. It will not be safe to presume that the accused Gopi transferred the gun Art. 1 to Ramphool with an intention that it may be used for unlawful purposes and as such I extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant Gopi under S. 27 of the Arms Act. His conviction under S. 30 of the Arms Act is maintained. 9. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants has urged, that imposition of fine alone, will meet the ends of justice. His conviction under S. 30 of the Arms Act is maintained. 9. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants has urged, that imposition of fine alone, will meet the ends of justice. I do not feel persuaded to agree with him. The gun Art. 1 has been recovered from the possession of the accused Ramphool, who was an outlaw, required in five criminal cases, pending against him. In such circumstances the imposition of fine alone will not meet the ends of justice. It will rather encourage the commission of the crime. 10. The net result of the above discussion is that the appeal of the accused-appellant Ramphool is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the trial court are confirmed. The accused Gopi is acquitted of the charge punishable under S. 27 of the Arms Act. His conviction under S 30 of the Arms Act is maintained. 11. Taking a conspectus of the circumstances of the case, I consider it to be in the interest of justice to maintain the conviction of the accused-appellant Gopi under section 30 of the Arms Act and reduce his sentence from three month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs- 200j- to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-; in default of the payment of fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. The accused-appellant Gopi is not before me. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur is directed to get the accused-appellant Gopi arrested and send him to jail to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence awarded by this Court. However, it is made clear that the appellants would be entitled to get a set off or adjustment under S. 428 Cr. P.C. 1973 of the period, if any, during which each of them remained in detention, during the investigation, enquiry or trial of this case. *******