JUDGMENT Ram Naresh Thakur, J. The appellant in this appeal has been convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to rigorous Imprisonment for ten years. He bas further been convicted under section 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case, according to the F.I.R. (Ext. 2), is that this appellant along with other accused persons boarded bus no. BRP 1693 on 13.1.1978. When informant Chandra Shankar Pathak, conductor of that bus, demanded bus fare, they pointed out pistol and got down from the bus and fired their pistols which could hit the body of the bus. The passengers and the people in the neighour hood chased the culprits. On chase this appellants along was arrested and it is said that this appellants was arrested with a pistol subsequently a case was instituted and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against this appellants as wall as four other accused persons. 3. In course of trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellant denied the allegation and pleaded innocence. After considering the entire evidence the learned trying court convicted the appellants, as stated above, but acquitted other accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the bus conductor or the case. P.W. 3 is alleged to have arrested the appellant with pistol but did not identify this appellant as having been arrested by him. The doctor has also not been examined. Therefore, according to him, the conviction under section 307 should not be upheld. He further submitted that sanction was not obtained before prosecution of this appellant under section 27 of the Arms Act. Therefore, his conviction cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. From the judgment on the record it does not that appear sanction was accorded for the prosecution of the appellant under section 27 of the Arms which is an essential ingredient before prosecution of a culprit, u/s 27 of the Arms Act, since the allegation is that the appellants had no licence for possessing a pistol therefore, his conviction under section 27 of the Arms cannot be sustained and has to be set aside 6. As regard the conviction under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, true it is that P.W.3, who, according to the prosecution, arrested the appellant, has not supported, the prosecution case that he had arrested this appellant, but he has supported the occurrence. P.W.2 has supported the prosecution case and the fact that it is this appellant who arrested. The fact that the appellant was arrested on the spot is also not denied. Therefore, it is well proved that this appellants was arrested at the place of occurrence, as stated by the witnesses. 7. As regards the injury caused to P.W.3, he has not said that this appellant caused the injury; rather be bas said that some one fired in which be received the injury. He has given an explanation for non-identification of the appellant by saying that as long time had elapsed, he was unable to identify the man whom he had arrested, but P.W.2, who is the constable, has stated that this appellant was arrested at the spot and he had caused injuries to P.W. 3. True it is that the doctor has not been examined but the fact remains that P.W.3 has stated that he received pistol injury. Similarly, P.W.2 has stated that it was this appellant who caused injury to P.W.3. Therefore, it is well proved that this appellant caused injury to P.W.3. 8. Now it has to be seen as to which offence this appellant had committed. In absence of medical evidence it is difficult to hold that the appellant is guilty of the charge under section 307 of the penal Code and, Therefore. I hold that the appellant is guilty of an offence under section 324 of the Code. 9. As regards the sentence, he has already remained in jail for more than three year in that view of the matter the period already undergone will meet the ends of justice. 10. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under section 307 of the Penal Code is altered to one under section 324 and is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him but his conviction under section 27 of the Arms Act, and the sentence imposed there-under are set aside. 11. With the aforesaid modification in the conviction and the sentence, all indicated above the appeal is dismissed. Application dismissed, sentenced modified.