Judgment L.P.N.Shahdeo, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 4.10.1983 passed by Sri Laloo Pd. Singh, III Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Crl. Appeal No. 303 of 1980, who had upheld the judgment of conviction under Section 25(A) of the Arms Act passed against the petitioner by Sri N.C. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in G.R. No. 3868 of 1974 T.R. No. 1619 of 1980, who had sentenced him to undergo for one year R.I. 2. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Counsel for the petitions, has submitted that there is absolutely complete lack of evidence as to the point that the alleged pipegun with three live cartridges were recovered from one of the rooms of the house of the petitioner and that the same was in his conscious possession and within his control and knowledge and therefore the conviction passed against the petitioner under Sec. 25(A) of the Arms Act and the sentence thereunder cannot sustain in law. 3. The conviction of the petitioner under Sec. 25(A) of the Arms Act was passed in the following circumstances. 4. It appears that one Sarfulla, who was arrested in connection with a dacoity case, this accused Sarfulla made confession before the police that he had sold one pipe gun to one person of Hindpiri Mohalla, Ranchi, and according to the confessional statement of accused Sarfulla, the police searched the house of the petitioner on 28.10.1983 and the petitioner opened the house, on knock by the police leading to the search of the house of the petitioner. The search was conducted in presence of two independent witnesses. In one of the rooms, the police officer, found a locked tin box. The police officer asked for the key and the Key was supplied to this petitioner by his mother, which was given to the police officer and the box was opened in his presence. From that tin box one pipe gun and three live cartridges were recovered for which seizure list was prepared and ultimately case instituted and the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner. The petitioner was put on trial, in which the witnesses were examined leading to his conviction and sentence. 5. Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction, but his appeal was also dismissed by the 3rd Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, as indicated above. 6. The petitioner was put on trial, in which the witnesses were examined leading to his conviction and sentence. 5. Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction, but his appeal was also dismissed by the 3rd Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, as indicated above. 6. Although, there is concurrent findings, of the Courts but in order to avoid miscarriage of justice, I permitted the learned Counsel to place the evidence on the point of conscious possession. On the basis of evidence and the prosecution case, it is now admitted position that the pipe gun was recovered from a tin box from a room of the house of the petitioner. It is admitted position that the petitioner was not in the room at that time. It is admitted position that there is no evidence in support of the fact that the petitioner had occupied that room or was living in that room. There is no evidence that the key of the box was supplied by the petitioner to the police officer. It is admitted position that the key of the box was supplied by the mother of the petitioner and thereafter the box was opened. It is also admitted in this case that in that house several members of the family reside. It is also admitted that in that tin box not only the pipe gun but some cloths were also found. No evidence adduced to fix up that those cloths belonged to non-else but the petitioner so that presumption can be arrived at that the box was under his control or in his possession or that he was conscious of fact that he was in possession of the illegal arm and live cartridges. In the absence of evidence on these points, it can be presumed and concluded that the prosecution had established the conscious possession or that the fact that the room was under the control of the petitioner or that the petitioner had knowledge that the arms was kept in that tin box. Simply producing a key by some body and thereafter supplying it to the petitioner on the basis of which the police officer opened the tin box cannot give rise to a presumption that the illegal arms and ammunition were in possession of the petitioner. Simply producing a key by some body and thereafter supplying it to the petitioner on the basis of which the police officer opened the tin box cannot give rise to a presumption that the illegal arms and ammunition were in possession of the petitioner. The very fact that the key was supplied by the mother of the petitioner, who is not an accused goes to indicate that the box, in fact, if at all, was under her control and possession. It might be that the mother or some members of the family were in possession of the said box but not the petitioner. Conscious possession means, his knowledge and effective and actual control of the illegal arms or ammunition. 7. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had examined this aspect of the matter but they have failed to take into consideration the aforesaid admitted facts which have been discussed above by me. Both the Courts were influenced and ready concluded only because the key was supplied by this petitioner, the box belonged to him or that it would give rise to a presumption of possession or control of the arms. I have already indicated and held above that such presumption cannot be arrived at in this case in view of the fact that the key was not in possession of the petitioner, but was in possession of the mother of the petitioner. Here it appears that both the Courts, Trial Court and the Appellate Court, have committed a grave mistake leading to the conviction of the petitioner. 8. It also appears that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have committed a mistake by holding that generally male members of the family do not keep keys with them always, but the key is kept by female members of the family. Therefore inference should have been drawn that female members had conscious knowledge of the contents of tin box than the male members. Therefore, this aspect of the matter should not have been given must weight and value to base the conviction against the petitioner. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a ruling reported in Bheka Ahir V/s. Emperor, AIR 1947 Pat 236. In this case, it was held that the possession and control of the arm means to be conscious possession and actual control. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a ruling reported in Bheka Ahir V/s. Emperor, AIR 1947 Pat 236. In this case, it was held that the possession and control of the arm means to be conscious possession and actual control. It was further held that mere proof that an incriminating ankle is found in a premise occupied by a number of persons does not by itself establish, prima facie, the guilt of any particular person or of all of them jointly. It was also found that the mere fact that the keys of the room from where the incriminating article was recovered were handed over to the police by the head of the family does not establish that he was in possession of that room specially when the keys were taken from the custody of one of his daughter-in-laws. This circumstance alone itself could not lend support to the inference that he was in conscious possession of the incriminating articles. 10. This ruling applies to the fact of the present case and in similar situation and circumstance, in exercising the revisional power, the High Court interfered with the concurrent findings of the Courts and such findings were set aside and that Criminal Revision application was allowed. Similar fact and circumstance discussed above, are available in this case and therefore, the order of conviction and sentence imposed against the accused/petitioner cannot sustain in law. 11. In the result, this revision application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner are set aside and the petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.