Judgment N. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Balotra Camp at Barmer dated 9. 3. 1984 whereby the order passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate dated 21. 10. 1981 was confirmed by which the petitioner has been convicted u/s. 25 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to one year R. I. with a fine of Rs. 200/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further one months R. I. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 19. 10. 1977, Mangilal, Head Constable informed Circle Inspector P. S. Shiv that while he was working at Police Chowki Miyad on 19. 10. 1977 one Dau lodged a report that when his camel was grazing grass, Idan tried to steal camel but he was caught. It was also alleged that Idan asked Bhimdan to fire but Bhimdan could not fire as he was beaten by him. On this report police reached the place of incident and recovered one gun along with six cartridges. A case u/s. 7/25 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioner and he was arrested. After due investigation, police filed a challan against the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate after conclusion of the trial, convicted-and sentenced the petitioner. Against this order the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed as stated above. Hence this revision. ( 3 ) MR. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the main complaint lodged by the informant Dau final report has been filed and the proceedings have been dropped, so on that basis the petitioner cannot be convicted. He has also submitted that the incident is of 19. 10. 1977 and the gun was recovered on 20. 10. 1977 but the petitioner was arrested on 22. 11. 1977, this delay has not been explained by the prosecution, so the petitioner cannot be convicted. ( 4 ) MR. D. R. Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the orders passed by - the learned courts below and submitted that the petitioner has been rightly convicted. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In this case, in support of its case the prosecution has produced eight witnesses. ( 4 ) MR. D. R. Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the orders passed by - the learned courts below and submitted that the petitioner has been rightly convicted. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In this case, in support of its case the prosecution has produced eight witnesses. P. W. 3 Sayli has stated that when he has reached at the Dhani of Dau, he saw Bhimdan and his brother Idan were lying and some persons were standing nearby them. P. W. 7 Sakir has stated that after the incident they did not allow the accused to run and tied the hands of Bhimdan and Idan with Potia which were untied by Mangilal. P. W. 8 Kachhab Dan, Head Constable has stated that the accused Bhimdan was arrested vide Ex. P6. He has also stated that gun was brought by Mangilal in Police Station. He has further stated that the gun was not in working order and to his mind there was no necessity of taking any licence for that gun. It is clear from the perusal of the testimony of above witnesses and the documents that the incident has taken place on 19. 10. 1977. The original complaint was dropped and a challan was filed against the complainant for lodging a false complaint. Learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to show from the record any evidence to satisfy that when gun was lying with the accused on 19. 10. 1977 at the time of incident then why it was not recovered on the same day but on 20. 10. 1977. Apart from that as per P. W. 7 Gakar, the hands of the accused were tied by the complainant party and were untied only by police, but despite that police has not arrested the petitioner on that day and he was arrested only on 22. 11. 1977 after more than a month. The prosecution has not given any satisfactory explanation and failed to prove its case. Therefore, the entire recovery of gun from the accused has become suspicious. In such circumstances, the delay in arresting the petitioner and connecting him with the recovery of gun is fatal to the prosecution, so the conviction on that basis cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) IN the result, the revision petition is allowed. Therefore, the entire recovery of gun from the accused has become suspicious. In such circumstances, the delay in arresting the petitioner and connecting him with the recovery of gun is fatal to the prosecution, so the conviction on that basis cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) IN the result, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction of the petitioner Bhim Dan u/s. 25 of the Arms Act is quashed. He is acquitted of the aforesaid charge. The orders passed by learned courts below are set aside. The petitioner is already on bail, so he need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged.