JUDGMENT 1. - One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the judgment dated February 13. 1931 of the Additional Sessions Judge No. I Kota is that even the learned appellate court agreed with the learned trial court that when 'dhariya' was recovered from the house of the accused-petitioner, he was not present and therefore his contention is that merely because the house belongs to the accused, there could be no presumption that 'dhariya' was recovered from the accused petitioner. 2. A look at the judgment will show that the court had observed that though the accused was not in present at the time when 'dhariya' was recovered from his house, but such a weapon could not be possessed by his wife. Thus, the reasons of the learned appellate court cannot be said to be in accordance with law. In the instant case admittedly, the accused petitioner was not present when 'dhariya' is said to have been recovered from his house and therefore it cannot be said that the accused was in possession of 'dhariya'. 3. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the judgments of both the courts below convicting and sentencing the accused petitioner under Sec 4/25 of the Arms Act are set aside. The accused petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds, which arc hereby discharged.Revision allowed. *******