Short Note : The prosecution case in brief at the trial was that on 4-76 the appellant, who was drunk had gone to take his meals at Haidar Hotel which is located in Ande-wali gali, Ujjain. He had beaten Anwar P.W.5, a boy aged 12 years, the son of the hotel owner, when the appellant refused to pay the bill. On seeing Anwar crying, Shamsuddin P.W.1 asked Anwar as to why be was crying, whereupon he told him what had happened. Upon this Shamsuddin asked the appellant to make payment but he started uttering abuses due to which a crowd had collected. In the meanwhile when Shamsuddin P.W.1 had gone to the cycle shop of P.W.4 Niyaz Mohammad which was at a short distance from the hotel, the appellant came from behind, kept his hand, on the shoulder of Shamsuddin, took out a country made muzzle loading pipe pistol and fired it. However, Shamsuddin was able to save himself from the pistol shot and in the meanwhile the appellant ran away, but was caught on the way by P.W.9 Basant and was taken to the police station, where Shamsuddin lodged the F.I.R. Ex.P-1 at 11-30 a.m. i.e., within 20 minutes from the time of the incident. 3 such country made pistols were seized from the possession of the appellant who was arrested at the police station itself and on these facts the appellant was prosecuted which on trial resulted in his conviction. 2. The defence of the appellant at the trial was denial and false implication, though he did not dispute that at the relevant time he had gone to take his meals at that hotel. Held : The fact that the appellant was armed with a country pistol and that he had fired a short at Shamsuddin has been clearly established from the evidence of Shamsuddin himself. He has stated that on inquiry when he learnt from Anwar PW 5 the cause for his weeping he went inside the hotel and requested the appellant to pay the bill. However, in a drunken state the appellant started abusing him, due to which a crowd collected outside the hotel. He has stated that on inquiry when he learnt from Anwar PW 5 the cause for his weeping he went inside the hotel and requested the appellant to pay the bill. However, in a drunken state the appellant started abusing him, due to which a crowd collected outside the hotel. Thereafter, the appellant made payment and when he reached at the cycle shop of Niyaz Mohammad PW4 which is at a distance of 30 yards from the hotel, the appellant came there from behind, put his hand on the shoulder, took out a country made revolver, put it against the ribs and due to that touch he took a sudden turn, he was lucky enough to escape, though in the meanwhile the appellant fired the pistol shot. Thereafter, he tried to run after the appellant who was running away, but in the meanwhile Basant Kumar PW 9 overpowered him on the way, and the appellant was taken to the police station where the report Ex.P-1 was lodged. He has further deposed that if he had not moved in time the pistol shot would have definitely killed him. His evidence has been substantially corroborated in material particulars by the other eye-witnesses PW 2 Faiyaz Ahmad and P.W.3 Gani as well as Niyaz Mohammad PW 4. All these witnesses have categorically stated that they saw the appellant armed with a loaded country pistol and that he fired the shot at Shamsuddin but it did not cause any injury. There appears no reason to doubt the evidence of Shamsuddin who had no enmity with the appellant as he came to know him only on account of this incident. His evidence and the evidence of the other-eye. witnesses has also proved that the appellant was caught while running away and was taken to the police station wherein all 3 such country pistols were found on his person which were seized. The Ballisties Expert K.L. Patel PW-11 who examined these pistols has further testified that the pistol Art. A, had been fired and in his opinion firing through such a pistol will be dangerous at close range i.e., within 2 or 3 yards and from the evidence of Shamsuddin it is clear that the pallets, on being fired, were just passed 2 or 3 inches away from his body as he took a turn. Thus it is clear from the prosecution evidence that the intention to kill Shamsuddin was apparent as he followed him upto the shop of Niyaz Mohammad, accosted him and then after taking out the pistol intentionally fired the shot which luckily did not cause any injury to him. Thus I find that the prosecution has fully established its case against the appellant as the whole incident took place in broad day light in which there was no difficulty in distinctly identifying the appellant who was immediately overpowered and arrested. 3. It is also established that the appellant did not have any licence under the Arms Act for these pistols, and this fact has been proved by the evidence of PW 8 Vijai who has also proved the sanction granted by the District Magistrate, Ujjain for prosecuting the appellant under the Arms Act. 4. For all these reasons I find that both the charges against the appellant have been fully established and his conviction thereunder is quite proper and justified. Appeal dismissed.