Order The prosecution case was that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act. It is proved by the evidence of P.W. 1 the Head Constable that the petitioner was in possession of a pistol. Now, the mere possession of a pistol by a person is not an offence punishable under section 19(f) of the Arms Act. What is punishable is the possession of a pistol in contravention of the provisions of section 14 or section 15 of the Act. section 15 has obviously no application to this case, and section 14 reads: “ Unlicensed possession of fire arms, etc.-No person shall have in his possession or under his control any cannon or fire-arms, or any ammunition or military stores, except under a license and in the mariner and to the extent pemitted thereby.” No one has suggested in this case that the petitioner did not have a license to own or to be in possession of the pistol which was with him. In a case like this, where mere possession of a fine arm does not constitute an offence, but what is an offence in its possession without a license, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the facts constituting the offence. One of those facts to be established by the prosecution is that the accused did not have a license to be in possession of a fire arm. Unfortunately in this case, P.W.1 who was the only prosecution witness, whose testimony has been believed by the Courts below, did not state in his evidence that the petitioner had no license to possess the pistol. If P.W.1 had given that evidence, and the petitioner had not produced the license permitting him to possess the fire arm, it would, of course, have been open to the Magistrate to draw the inference that the petitioner had no license under which he could possess the pistol. But, if P.W.1 did not give any evidence that the petitioner did not have a license lor that purpose, it was scarcely necessary for the petitioner to produce proof that he had a license. The prosecution in this case must, therefore, fail for the reason that there is no evidence in the case that the possession of the pistol by the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of sections 14 of the Arms Act. The prosecution in this case must, therefore, fail for the reason that there is no evidence in the case that the possession of the pistol by the petitioner was in contravention of the provisions of sections 14 of the Arms Act. The result is that the Revision Petition stands allowed. The conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence with which he is charged. The fine, if paid shall be refunded. S.V.S.-----Petition allowed.