BHATNAGAR, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dated June 14, 1976 by which the appellant Jhuntha Ram was convicted for the offence under section 302 and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first count and two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo two months R. I. on the second count. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as under:— 3. In the precincts of village-Nagrasari there was land which the villagers claimed to be abadi land in view of the increasing population of the village and the appellant Jhuntha Ram claimed to be his in view of the allotment made to him. It is alleged that deceased Lal Chand Brahmin had encroached upon that land by constructing an enclosure (Bada) which created annoyance to the appellant. On 30th November, 1973 at about 10-30 a. m. there was hot exchange of words between Lal Chand Brahmin and appellant Jhuntha Ram concerning that Bada. Jhuntha Ram hurled abuses to Lal Chand and fired a shot from his muzzle loading gun which proved fatal for Lal Chand. Lal Chand Jat (P.W.I) who was in his nearby field on hearing the report of the gun fire rushed towards the site. Roopa Ram (P. W. 2) and Devsingh (P. W. 3) also went near the place of the occurrence. Mahaveer and Dev Singh (P.W.3) lifted the dead body of Lal Chand and took him to a distance of about 355 feet and put it outside the enclosure of the deceased. Roopa Ram told the deceased that he had committed the blunder at the Ram Pratap son of the appellant (since acquitted by the trial Court) fired a shot with his country made pistol which hit the thigh of Roopa Ram. Sukh-deva another son of the appellant (also acquitted by the trial Court) is also said to be there participating in the quarrel. Lal Chand (P.W.I) went to the Police Station, Nagrasari and lodged an oral report with P.W. 9 Hari Singh, S.H.O. of that Police Station. The information reduced into writing is Ex. P 1. The S.H.O. went to the site and conducted necessary investigation there. He inspected the site and prepared the site inspection memo Ex.P. 2. Lal Chand (P.W.I) went to the Police Station, Nagrasari and lodged an oral report with P.W. 9 Hari Singh, S.H.O. of that Police Station. The information reduced into writing is Ex. P 1. The S.H.O. went to the site and conducted necessary investigation there. He inspected the site and prepared the site inspection memo Ex.P. 2. He also prepared the injury report of Ex. P. 3 and panchayatnama of the dead body Ex. P.4. Three empty cartridges and two pieces of paper smelling gun powder were found at the site which were taken in possession and sealed. The blood stained earth and the clothes of the deceased smeared with blood were also taken in possession. Dr. Ganga Ram, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Mohar conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Lal Chand at 4.00 p.m. On the same day, the Doctor noted following gun shot injuries on dead body and noted as under:— Wounds: 1. 1 c.m. circular wound on the back of lift wrist joint near the medial border. Edges of the wound are inverted and bruised. Direction of the wound is almost horizontal and outward. Communicated as with the wound no. 2. 2. 1.5 c.m. circular wound on internal border of wrist joint. Edges of wound are everted and irregular, Directions of the wound is almost horizen-tal and inwards. Communicated with the wound no. 1. There is fracture of lower end of the left radius. 3. 1 c.m. oval wound 2 cm. to the right from left border of the sternum at the level of third castal cartilage. Edges of the wound inverted and bruised. Direction of the wound backward downward and to the right. Wound communicates with the thoracic civacity. On dissection the sternum is punctured at the level of third castal cartilage on further desection, there was a wound in right lung enteriouly wound measuring 2 c.m. x 2.2 cm. Direction of the wound was backward outward and downward. This wound communicated with the wound in posterior surface of the lung which measured 3 c.m.x 3.5 cm. All wound were ante-mortem in nature. One shot was removed from dissecting the wound no. 3. 4. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was fire arm injuries causing rupture of right lung leading to haemorrhage and shock. The post-mortem examination report is Ex. P. 21. 5. On December 1, 1973 Dr. All wound were ante-mortem in nature. One shot was removed from dissecting the wound no. 3. 4. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was fire arm injuries causing rupture of right lung leading to haemorrhage and shock. The post-mortem examination report is Ex. P. 21. 5. On December 1, 1973 Dr. Ganga Ram examined Rugga Ram and noted one lacerated wound 2 c.m.x5 c.m. muscle deep on middle third part medial surface of left thigh. He also noted swelling on the middle third medial surface of left thigh aground the wound no. 1. The duration of injury was said to be 24 hours. The injury report is Ex. P. 22. 6. The appellant was arrested on 30th November, 1973. In pursuance of the information Ex.P. 13 furnished by him he got recovered muzzle loading gun from his house which was taken in possession vide memo Ex. P.9. The appellant also produced one bag containing gum powder, pellets etc. which were also taken in possession vide memo Ex P. 10 Rampratap and Sukhdeva were also arrested. In pursuance of the information furnished by Rampratap 30 cartridges of 12 bore gun were recovered from the possession of one Girdhari. In pursuance of the information furnished by Sukhdeva to the effect that Ram Pratap had given his 12 bore gun to him. One gun was recovered at his instance from a place about half a mile distance from the village population. The fire arm and the cartridges etc. recovered during the course of investigation were sent to the Ballistic Expert, and the blood stained articles to the Serologist for chemical examination and report were received. 7. Upon completion of necessary investigation charge-sheet against the appellant and two co-accused Rampratap and Sukhdeva was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra. The learned Magistrate finding a prima facie case exclusively triable the Court of Sessions, committed all of them to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh charge sheeted the appellant for the offence under sections 302, 307/34 I P.C. and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. The case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh charge sheeted the appellant for the offence under sections 302, 307/34 I P.C. and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. Rampratap was charge-sheeted for the offence u/s 302/34 I.P.C. and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and Sukhdeva was charge sheeted for the offence under section 302/34 and 307/34 I P.C. On their pleading being recorded all of them denied the indictments and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all to substantiate its case. All the accused denied the allegations levelled against them in the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Appellant Jhuntha Ram stated that he was making shoes for the villagers for about 16 years. Then his caste people directed him to leave that profession and he complied with the direction. That he had his land in the precincts of village. That he was also performing the duties of village watch man. The villagers as asked him either to continue the work of shoe making or leave the land. Thereafter the land was allotted to him and became his khate-dari land. That the villagers wanted the land to snatch from him. He further stated that he had gone to the field for cultivation of land on the date of occurrence then fifteen or sixteen villagers armed with pistols, gun and lathis entered his field and hurled abuses to him. They started firing the guns, and pistols. That, he got frightened when the villagers surrounded him. That he was having a muzzle loading gun with him which he fired in the air in order to save himself. Someone fired the gun from behind him which hit the persons in the western side and the people cried that the gun has hit their own man. That, he thereafter went away from there with his gun. He further stated that in case the murder would have been at his hand, the villagers would not have let him and his family members alive. He filed Ex. D.4, Ex. D.5, Ex D 6, Ex. D.7, Ex. D.8. Ex. D.9 and Ex. D. 10 the papers relating to the allotment of the land in question to him and his being put in possession of the same. 9. He filed Ex. D.4, Ex. D.5, Ex D 6, Ex. D.7, Ex. D.8. Ex. D.9 and Ex. D. 10 the papers relating to the allotment of the land in question to him and his being put in possession of the same. 9. The learned trial Judge did not believe the prosecution case about the quarrel being taken place because of the enclosure erected by Lal Chand as the same was there for the last 10-15. years. The trial Judge attached importance to the removal of the dead body of Lal Chand from the site of occurrence to a great distance up to the enclosure of the deceased and opined that it so appears that this was done in order to deprive disprove the accused of their right of private defence to person or property. The learned Judge in view of the medical evidence, that the injuries sustained by Rugha Ram could not be caused by any fire arm and were rather caused by blunt object and also in view of the expert opinion that the none of the cartridges found at the site could have been fired by the country made pistol under reference did not hold Ram Pratap guilty of any offence. Presence of Sukhdevo and Rampratap at the site and their participation in the quarrel was also considered to be exaggeration by the learned trial Judge. In view of this finding, Rampratap and Sukhdeva were acquitted. The learned trial Judge, considered the documents regarding the allotment of the land to be genuine. But in view of the fact that there was no occasion for the appellant to fire the shot held him guilty for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as stated earlier. 10. Being dissatisfied by his conviction and sentences, Jhuntha Ram appellant has preferred this appeal through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner. As he was unrepresented Mr. B. Advani, Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae to plead on his behalf. 11. We heard Mr. B. Advani, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. H.N. Calla learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully examined the record of the case. 12. Mr. As he was unrepresented Mr. B. Advani, Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae to plead on his behalf. 11. We heard Mr. B. Advani, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. H.N. Calla learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully examined the record of the case. 12. Mr. B. Advani, learned Amicus Curiae assailed the findings of the learned trial Judge on the grounds that when the basic story of the prosecution i.e. the quarrel having taken place on account of the deceased constructing a Bada on the land in dispute has been disproved by the trial Court, there was no justification for the accused not being believed for his plea of right of private defence to person and property. It has also been stressed by the learned Amicus Curiae that when the prosecution witnesses have been disbelieved by the trial Court for the major portions of their statements such as the cause of quarrel, as stated above and the participation of the co-accused Rampratap and Sukhdeva in the crime and Rugha having sustained any injury by any shot alleged to have been fired by Ram pratap, there was no reason to believe the remaining parts of the statement of those witnesses regarding the alleged crime by the appellant. 13. Prosecution has come up with a case that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had ensued because of the appellant threating the deceased of demolishing has enclosure which he has erected on the land belonging to him (appellant). The learned Judge, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record has opined that the origin of the quarrel was not concerning with the enclosure of the deceased. The learned Judge, found more truth in the version of the appellant that adjacent to the village he owns his agricultural land in the north-western direction and the villagers were creating obstruction for his cultivation and that was the cause of the quarrel. It has also to be noted that the learned Judge has considered the version given by the prosecution witnesses as exaggerated one for the reason that the two co--accused had been falsely implicated in the matter. It has also to be noted that the learned Judge has considered the version given by the prosecution witnesses as exaggerated one for the reason that the two co--accused had been falsely implicated in the matter. One of the ground on which the learned Judge has based his opinion is that the testimony of the witnesses that Rugha had sustained gun shot injury at the hands of co-accused Rampratap has been believed by the medical evidence to the effect that such a injury should have been caused by some blunt object. The learned trial Judge was also particular to note that this medical opinion was given despite Rugha having brought it to the notice of the Doctor examining him that he had sustained injuries by gun shot. The learned Judge has also given weight to the expert opinion that the empty cartridges recovered at the site could not have been fired by the pistol under reference. The pistol in question, it is to be noted is said to have been recovered in pursuance of the information furnished by Sukh Deva that Ram Pratap had given it to him. It is the case of the appellant Jhuntha Ram alone which is under consideration before this Court but the discussion regarding the case of the co-accused since acquitted by the trial Court has been necessitated for the reason that the prosecution witnesses having not been believed in to by the trial Court. This has become all the more important in view of the defence plea taken by the appellant in his statement u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and suggestion to that effect having been made to the prosecution witnesses. 14. From the prosecution evidence of Devs, (P.W. 3), Lal Chand (P.W.I) and Roopa Ram (P.W.2) this much is proved that it was the gun-shot fired by the appellant which hit Lal Chand Brahmin. The origin of the quarrel given by these witnesses has not been believed by the learned trial Judge as stated earlier. 15. The prosecution case about Lal Chand Brahmin becoming the victim of the gun shot by the appellant having been rightly believed by the learned trial Judge, the only question remaining for consideration is whether there was occasion or justification for the appellant to take such a drastic major step so as to cause death of Lal Chand Brahmin. 16. 15. The prosecution case about Lal Chand Brahmin becoming the victim of the gun shot by the appellant having been rightly believed by the learned trial Judge, the only question remaining for consideration is whether there was occasion or justification for the appellant to take such a drastic major step so as to cause death of Lal Chand Brahmin. 16. There are three most important points emerging for decision in the case. Firstly, to whom the land in dispute belonged, secondly what was the actual place of occurrence and thirdly whether the circumstances called for any drastic act by the appellant. 17. The eye witnesses as observed above have come with the case that the origin of the quarrel was hot altercation between the assailants and the victim regarding the enclosure of Lal Chand. This part of the prosecution story having been disbelieved by the trial Court and in our opinion rightly so. It will have to be seen whether the plea taken by the accused finds support by oral or documentary testimony on the record. 18. P.W. 9 Hari Singh, Investigating Officer has denied the suggestion that Jhuntha Ram wanted to cultivate the land but the villagers wanted to take possession of the land by force. The witness however admitted that the cause of the quarrel was the desire of Jhuntha Ram to take possession of the land as he wanted to cultivate the same. The witness also admitted that the villagers did not want him to cultivate the land which they said to be abadi land. The witness admitted that he did not verify from the revenue record as to whether the land in dispute was abadi land or not. The witness failed to tell what type of land it was. The witness stated that he was given Ex. D.3, the certified copy of the document by the villagers in proof of their contention that the land was abadi land. It is to be observed that Ex. D 3 is a direction by the S. D. O., Nohar to Tehsildar Nohar dated 16.8.1973 in connection with the application by the villagers of Nagrasari for leaving 33.2 bighas land in Khasra No. 70 as abadi land. The direction given in that till the application is decided, status-quo be maintained. The appellant while giving statement has filed exhibits D. 4 to Ex. D. 10. The direction given in that till the application is decided, status-quo be maintained. The appellant while giving statement has filed exhibits D. 4 to Ex. D. 10. Ex D. 4 is the copy of the Jama Bandi showing 15 bighas of Khasra No. 70 being the land of Jhuntha Ram. Ex.D. 5 is the copy of the Jama-bandi showing 58.3 bighas of land being in possession of Jhuntha Ram. Ex. D. 6 is the copy of the parcha-lagan showing the name of Jhuntha Ram as cultivator of the land in question. Ex. D. 7 is the copy of the order dated 21.10.72 for entrusting the possession of 58.3 bighas of land in Khasra No 70 to Jhuntha Ram and report the matter to the S.D.O. Nohar. Ex.D. 8 is a receipt for payment of lagan by Jhuntha Ram. Ex.D. 10 is the copy of the letter dated 12.10.72 written to the Tehsildar, Nohar by the Addl. District Magistrate, Gangangar for taking proceedings for handing over 58.3 bighas of land in Khasra No. 70 to Jhuntha Ram according to law. It has been mentioned therein that Jhuntha Ram has submitted that he has been depositing the Rakam-pali for this land as the same has been allotted to him because of his being watch-man (Kotwal) of village Nagrasari. It has further been mentioned that when he went to Nohar, he was directed that this poor harijan may be given legal help in that concern but the man has again appeared before him. That Government was making efforts to improve the condition of poor but this man is being obstructed in cultivating the land allotted to him according to rules. It was, therefore, directed that as this man was finding himself incapable for cultivating his land, steps may be taken for his being put in possession of the land and if necessary police aid may be procured. All these documents falsify the prosecution case that there was no question of any allotment of land or any procedure even for giving the possession of the land to the appellant. Assuming for the sake of argument that there was representation by the villagers for leaving the land for abadi land, as mentioned in Ex. D. 3 still the defence version is not falsified, because there is the prayer of only 33.2 bighas being left as abadi land in the application given by the villagers. Assuming for the sake of argument that there was representation by the villagers for leaving the land for abadi land, as mentioned in Ex. D. 3 still the defence version is not falsified, because there is the prayer of only 33.2 bighas being left as abadi land in the application given by the villagers. In Ex. D. 3, the direction is only about status-quo being maintained for that much of the land. There is the documentary evidence about the direction for the appellant being put in possession of the land for which the villagers were creating obstructions. This is correct that there is no evidence to support the defence version that Jhuntha Ram was in actual physical possession of the land on the relevant date. However, there is force in the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that it could not have been possible for the appellant to substantiate his contention as the whole village was out and out to throw him out of possession of the land in dispute. 19. Assuming for the sake of argument that the application of the villagers for 33.2 bighas of land on Khasra No. 70 was under consideration still there was 25.1 bighas of land for which there was no claim of any body and the documentary evidence shows about the same being in possession of the appellant. In such circumstances, when the villagers were bent upon in dispossessing the appellant from whole of the land there could have been justification for the appellant in resisting any obstruction in his cultivation. It is in these circumstances that the place of occurrence great importance. 20. The Investigating Officer has not cared to bring on record the exact location where the deceased fell down on being shot. This is the admitted position of the prosecution that Mahaveer and Devsi had lifted the dead body of the Lal Chand Brahmin and took it outside the enclosure of the injured. The learned trial Court has given due consideration to this fact and has observed that the removal of the dead body from the site of occurrence and its being taken to a distance of about 113 paces near the enclosure of the deceased has not been explained by the prosecution. The learned Judge has observed that from the record produced, the reason for taking the dead body from the place of occurrence is clear. The learned Judge has observed that from the record produced, the reason for taking the dead body from the place of occurrence is clear. According to the learned trial Judge, the witnesses might be thinking that the place where Lal Chand Brahmin had fallen was in possession of the accused and in case the quarrel would shown at that place then the story about the quarrel having taking place because of the enclosure of Lalchand would not fit in and that for reason that the dead body might have been taken from the place A to B shown in Ex. P. 3 The learned Judge has further observed that intention of those persons might have been that there doing so, the accused would not have a case to put up that the quarrel was because of any obstruction being created in his cultivation. The opinion expressed by the learned trial Judge is based on sound reasonings. The natural corollary to such a finding would be as to whether there were existing circumstances for the appellant to take resort to a drastic step in order to save himself or his land. 21. The learned Public Prosecutor has emphatically argued that the appellant having not sustained any injury, the question of private defence to person does notarise. Meeting out the argument of private defence to property, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant should have sought relief in legal way instead of taking the law into his own hand. 22. Admittedly it is the land in question which was the subject matter of the dispute between the appellant on one and the villagers including Lal Chand Brahmin deceased on the other hand. There being sufficient evidence about the allotment of land to the appellant and order for his being put in possession he had every right to cultivate the same If any body created any hurdle in his doing so then the right of defence of property accrued to him. The pertinent question emerging for determination in the case would be whether on the relevant date there was any imminent danger of the appellant being disturbed by the villagers in his physical possession of the land and cultivation of the same. The pertinent question emerging for determination in the case would be whether on the relevant date there was any imminent danger of the appellant being disturbed by the villagers in his physical possession of the land and cultivation of the same. Though the prosecution has come with the case that it was Lalchand Brahmin alone who was at the site and other witnesses had reached there on hearing the hot altercation between the appellant and the deceased and the firing of the shot by the former, circumstances lead to the conclusion that it must not have been Lal Chand Brahmin alone who might have restrained the appellant from cultivating the land. The reason for this opinion is that Lal Chand (P.W.1), Devsi (P.W.3), Mahaveer etc had no occasion to be present there near about the site at the relevant moment and were of chance witnesses. There are contradictions in the statements of Lal Chand (PW.1), Roopa Ram (P.W.2) and Devsi (P.W.3) at the trial and their previous statements before the police for the reason and the time of their reaching there near about the site. As noted earlier, the prosecution case about the quarrel having taken place on account of the encroachment of the land by the deceased and erecting an enclosure there having been discarded by the trial Court and the removal of the dead body from the site to a long distance with an idea to deprive the appellant form taking a plea of right of private defence to a person and property is sufficient to strengthen plea of the appellant that the quarrel had taken place in his land. This being the position, the right of private defence to property should have accrued to the appellant. A connected question calling for answer would be whether merely because of restraining by the deceased or any other person, the appellant cannot be justified in taking the drastic step of firing the shot causing death of Lal Chand Brahmin. The appellant had not sustained any injury at any bodys hand. Nor is there any evidence to show that the deceased was armed with weapon so as to create any apprehension in the mind of the appellant that he may be killed at the hands of the opposite side or may sustain any grievous injury. Despite that there is one circumstance going in favour of the defence. Nor is there any evidence to show that the deceased was armed with weapon so as to create any apprehension in the mind of the appellant that he may be killed at the hands of the opposite side or may sustain any grievous injury. Despite that there is one circumstance going in favour of the defence. The prosecution witnesses have assigned only one gun shot to the appellant. The three fire shots are said to have been fired by Rampratap co-accused with his pistol. The prosecution case against Ram Pratap has been disbelieved. 23. The learned trial Judge has observed that from the expert opinion it is evident that the three empty cartridges recovered at the site could not have been fired by country made pistol under reference. In such circumstances, the prosecution should have explained as to who had fired three shots of which empty cartridge were found at the site. If one person is threatened by a number of persons apprehension of being given a beating may be there. But the matter still have to be seen whether the appellant having a gun was because of his premeditation to commit the crime. The circumstances of the case suggest that it was very difficult for the appellant a person of schedule caste to cultivate the land allotted to him because the villagers wanted the part of it to be left as abadi land. The police aid was also ordered for his rescue. If in such circumstances, being afraid of dire consequence because of the threatening by the villagers in case he would not leave the land, the appellant was keeping with him his licenced muzzle loading gun as security measure, it cannot be said that he had any planning in his mind to commit any bodys murder. The case of the appellant therefore falls within the ambit of right of private defence to person and property. Despite this right having accrued to the appellant, it will yet to be seen whether in the given circumstances of the case firing of the gun was called for i.e. to say whether there was any justification for the same. There being no specific evidence of any attack on the appellant, his firing the shot cannot be said to be an appropriate step taken by him. He has, therefore, exceeded the right of private defence available to him. There being no specific evidence of any attack on the appellant, his firing the shot cannot be said to be an appropriate step taken by him. He has, therefore, exceeded the right of private defence available to him. His case therefore, falls within Exception- 2 of Sec. 300 I.P.C. and the cause comes within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Exception-2 is applicable in cases when the offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property exceeds the power given to him by law and causes death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. The firing of one single shot is also a point strengthening the defence case. 24 In the case of Balajit Singh v. The State Uttar Pradesh(l) prosecution failed to produce relevant revenue record to show who was in actual cultivating possession of the land in dispute. The accused party was in possession of the disputed land. In such circumstances when the complainant parties armed with sticks tried to disposes the accused party the right of a private defence of person or property was held to be have accrued to the accused party. The accused had assaulted the deceased causing as many as 72 injuries resulting in his death. Their Lordships in the circumstances of the case had held that the accused who had certainly a right of private defence of person and property had grossly exceeded that right and, therefore, their case fell within Exception 2 of Sec. 300 I.P.C. and as such they could not be held guilty under section 302 I.P.C. It was Sec. 304 Part-I which was held to be attracted in the case. 25. In the present case also, the circumstances of the case do not justify the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. He has grossly exceeded right of private defence available to him, when he used the fire arm causing the death of victim. In view of the Exception-2 of Section 300 I.P.C. the case comes within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant is, therefore held guilty under section 304 Part-1 for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 26. In view of the Exception-2 of Section 300 I.P.C. the case comes within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant is, therefore held guilty under section 304 Part-1 for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 26. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and the sentences of the appellant for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. are set aside and he is instead of convicted for the offence under section 304 Part 1 and sentenced to ten years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to under go three months R.I. The conviction and sentence for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act are maintained. The substantive sentence awarded to the appellant on both the counts shall run concurrently.