JUDGMENT 1. - This revision was preferred against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar dated 10.1.1990 by which he partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone and maintained the amount of fine by upholding the conviction done by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Cr. Case No. 36/86 on 22.7.1986. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while passing the judgment of conviction against the petitioner had awarded sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 324 IPC with a fine of Rs. 50/- and under section 27 of Indian Arms Act awarded to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs, 50/- and in default to further undergo ten days rigorous imprisonment on each count. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor at length. 3. The facts may be narrated in short. Mst. Shilo Bai reported at Police Station Lakhuwali on 9.12.1977 that on that date she and her sister-in-law and mother and niece had gone to the field. They had cut gear in the field and about 10 to 12 persons came from the side of village. They had come to the field of Harnam and at that time Makhan Singh was armed with a gun. His brother Ka rtar Singh and Amar Singh were also having guns in their hands. Rest of the persons were armed lathis. 'She further stated in the report that Makhan Singh fired towards her and a pellet injured her. She fell down and thereafter she and her relations run away towards.their houses. She narrated the story to Harnam Singh and then they all went to the Police Station where a case under sections 307, 336, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act was registered. After investigation challan was submitted before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Anupgarh on 29.6.1978 for offences under sections 307 IPC and 27 of Arms Act and other sections of IPC. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2. Hanumangarh discharged Amar Singh and Kartar Singh and tonned down the case against the accused petitioner. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate then transferred the case to the learned_ Munsif And Judicial Magistrate Suratgarh, who framed charges under section 324 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act against the petitioner. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2. Hanumangarh discharged Amar Singh and Kartar Singh and tonned down the case against the accused petitioner. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate then transferred the case to the learned_ Munsif And Judicial Magistrate Suratgarh, who framed charges under section 324 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act against the petitioner. The petitioner denied his indictment. There ifter prosecution examined three witnesses before the learned Munsif And Judicial Magistrate. Then the case was again transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar who recorded statements of four witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. He produced a witness in defence. After hearing both the parties the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under section 324 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. He passed the sentence of six months with a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to undergo 10 days rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 324 IPC. For offence under section 27 of Arms Act he passed the sentence of six months with a fine of Rs. 50 /- and in default to undergo 10 days imprisonment. He also passed the order that the sentences will run concurrently. He also passed the order of confiscation of the gun. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence for the period already undergone but maintained the fine. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court as well as appellate Court have not properly appreciated the evidence. He also contended that once when the case was tanned down under section 228 and was 'sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no power to send the case to the Munsif And Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the evidence of three witnesses recorded by the Munsif Magistrate cannot be read against the petitioner. Relying on Smt. China Kolay v. State & Ors., 1983 Cr. L.J. NOC 196 (Cal.) he submitted that where a case is transferred for trial by Additional Sessions Judge after framing a charge to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the offences are not exclusively triable by a Court of Session, it is incumbent upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate to try the case. The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate transferring the case for trial to subordinate Court is illegal. The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate transferring the case for trial to subordinate Court is illegal. He also submitted that even otherwise both the Courts have held that the gun used is not the same by which injuries were caused to injured Shilo Bai because the gun was never sent for examination to ballistic expert. 5. PW 1 Shilo Bai has stated that it was accused petitioner who aimed her and fired with the result she suffered injuries by pellets on her ear and neck. She has stated that it were Kartar Singh and Amar Singh also who had fired. Then she reported the matter to the police vide Ex. P/1. It is stated in FIR Ex. P/1 that the petitioner was about 2 Killas away from the injured from where he fired. It means that he was at a distance of two fields and then secondly other persons had also fired. So she could not be definite that it was the accused petitioner who had fired. 6. PW 2 Rampyari has stated that it was the accused petitioner who fired from a distance of about 2 killas. Thus she supports about the distance. PW 3 Baiya has also supported the version of these two witnesses. But the arm which was recovered at the instance of the accused petitioner was never sent for any examination by ballistics expert. While learned counsel, as stated above, relying on Smt. China Kolay v. State and others (supra) submitted that these statements could not be read against the petitioner, even if they are read, these three witnesses do not establish that it was the petitioner who had fired at Shilo Bai beyond doubt and that the gun which has been confiscated by the learned trial Court was used by the accused petitioner. 7. PW 5 Vijay Kumar had examined Shilo Bai and found four gun shot wounds on her body and prepared Ex. P/2, report. He stated that all the injuries were superficial but he admitted that the injury No. 1 which was on the chest of Shilo Bai could be caused by another fire arm. There is no evidence on record where the pellets went. The doctor does not say anything about them because they had not penetrated into the body of injured because the injuries were simple. There is no evidence on record where the pellets went. The doctor does not say anything about them because they had not penetrated into the body of injured because the injuries were simple. The pellets were not recovered by the police and no investigating officer who might have prepared the site plan has been examined by the prosecution. In these circumstances I hold that the accused appellant has been convicted by the trial Court and the appellate Court without any cogent evidence. I am conscious that the powers of the revisional Courts are limited so far as appreciation of evidence is concerned, but I have to go through the evidence because it appeared that the procedural errors have been committed and because miscarriage of justice appears to have been done. In Bharosi v. State of Rajasthan, 1986(1) WLN 548 it has been so held that the revisional Court can look into the evidence in such circumstances. 8. In the end the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of confiscation of gun is not proper. He relied on Ramlal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 671 wherein it has been held that once it has been held that no offence has been committed by the gun recovered then it was obligatory to have returned it to the licence holder. In the case in hand the gun is not connected with the crime and there was no justification in its confiscation. 9. In the result the revision succeeds. The accused petitioner is acquitted from the charges under section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The order of confiscation of gun is also set aside and it is ordered that the confiscated gun may be returned to the petitioner on presentation of licence.Revision allowed. *******