Short Note : Brief facts were that on 9-9-1973, a bus plying between Sind river and Murawali was checked by constables Machalsingh (PW3) and Ummedsingh at Mihona. They were informed that certain dacoits were travelling in the bus. The appellant alighted from the bus with a jhola in his hand and tried to move away in a suspicious manner. Therefore, the constables stopped him and took him to the thana with the jhola. At the thana, Head Constable Shambhu Singh (P.W.4) seized a country made pistol katta with 8 live catridges. After obtaining sanction of the District Magistrate, the appellant was prossecuted. Held: It is settled law that testimony of a witness cannot be rejected outright merely because he is a police man. In the instant case, it was not shown if any of these police-men bore enmity or malice against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge who has seen the witnesses in the box has believed them. Mohandas (P.W. 2) has turned hostile, in spite of the fact that he has admitted his signature on the seizure memo. Nextly, we find tbat in the committal Court the appellc.nt admitted the fact that the country-made pistol (katta) and the cartridges were in his jhola but he would say that it was one Rama dacoit who had put the same in his jhola and got him arrested. After due consideration of the evidence on record, j hold that the country-made katta and the live cartridges were seized from the possession of the appellant. He did not hold any licence for the same. Sanction (Ex P. 1) of the District Magistrate to prosecute the appellant was du1y proved by Rambabu Pandey (PW 1). Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under section 25 (a) of the Arms Act is correct needing no interference. However, looking to the facts and the circl1mstances of the case, rigorous imprisonment for two years appears to be rather excessive and needs to be reduced. In my view, rigorous imprisonment for six months will meet the ends of justice. Appeal partly allowed.