JUDGMENT 1. - This petition of revision is directed against the appellas judgment and order, dated, March 13, 1981 of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Baran, whereby that learned Judge affirmed the judgment and order, dated, February 21, 1981, of the Judicial Magistrate No.l, Baran, convicting the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, or, in default, simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on June 1, 1980, while in police custody in connection with the investigation of a case, F.I.R. No. 890, under section 395, 396 and 397 I.P.C., relating to police station Kasba Thana, the accused petitioner made a disclosure to the effect that he had concealed a country-made gun in the grass lying in the Bara, adjoining his residential house and that he could get the same recovered from there. It is further alleged that gun, article-1, was recovered by the Investigating Officer in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Jagannath and Bheru, in consequence of that information. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined Sub Inspector Ishwar Singh, Jagannath and Bheru as its witnesses. They fully supported the prosecution story, as narrated above. In his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C., the accused petitioner denied the allegations made against him and complained that the gun which is said to have been recovered from his possession was already in the possession of the police and that it was falsely planted on him. The accused did not produce any evidence in defence. 4. Relying on the testimony of Ishwar Singh, Jagannath and Bheru, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the gun, article-1, was in possession of the accused petitioner and that it had been recovered from his Bara in consequence of information supplied by him. This finding has since been affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as mentioned above. 5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned conviction and sentence, the accused petitioner, has challenged the same in this revision petition. Mr. This finding has since been affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as mentioned above. 5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned conviction and sentence, the accused petitioner, has challenged the same in this revision petition. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the gun, said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner, is the same gun which has been deposited with the police in 1975, on the death of the accused petitioner's father and that the police have foisted the same gun on the accused petitioner, in order to falsely implicate him in this case. It is submitted that the number engraved on the gun of the accused petitioner's father, which was deposited with the police in 1975, was 439 and that the same number was found engraved on the gun, article-1. Mr. Bhandari, has argued that this would be enough to establish that it is a case of false implication. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has argued that the number engraved on the gun, article-1, is not merely 439, but 588 as well, and that therefore, it would not be correct to say that this gun is the same which had been deposited with the police in 1975. 7. After giving the matter careful consideration, I am of opinion that the argument raised by Mr. Mathur is more plausible. It will be seen that the Investigating Officer had in a straight-forward manner recorded in the recovery memo Ex. P.-A that the number engraved on the gun, Article-1, was 588 and 439, If the Investigating Officer, intended to foist a weapon falsely on the accused petitioner it is difficult to believe that he would take up from the malkhana the same gun with a number engraved on it which had been deposited there by the accused petitioner in the year 1975 on the death of his father. 8. Mr. Bhandari also read out in the court the deposition in the trial of PWs. Jagannath and Bheru, in an attempt to show that they are not reliable witnesses. I am afraid that this Court cannot substitute its own appreciation of evidence for those of the Courts below. This Court has, in the absence of compelling reasons, always declined to act as a third court of facts. Jagannath and Bheru, in an attempt to show that they are not reliable witnesses. I am afraid that this Court cannot substitute its own appreciation of evidence for those of the Courts below. This Court has, in the absence of compelling reasons, always declined to act as a third court of facts. There is no compelling reason in this case to depart from the well recognised rule of practice adopted by this Court. 9. In conclusion, there is no force in this petition of revision. The same is, therefore, dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******