JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.3.89 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in ST. No. 220/87. The appellants have been found guilty of offences punishable u/s 25 and 27 of the Arms Act in so far as they possessed the country made fire arms and used it for unlawful purposes. 4 appellants were tried for offence under these provisions as well as u/s 399 as also u/s 402 IPC on the charge that on 19.2.87 in the area of police station Chandela by the side of Loharu river near Chhathi Bahmiri they are collected and were making preparation to commit decoity. The police party approached and sorrounded them, heard their conversations and apprehended them. From these 2 appellants country made fire arms and ammunitions were recovered. Some other articles were recovered from others. 2. The trial court on the basis of evidence of police officials (while public witnesses turned hostile), held that the offence u/s 399 and 402 were not established but possession of country made fire arms along with ammunition were established. The Court also found that the fire arm were possessed for unlawful purpose. Hence conviction and sentence. The sentence was for 3 years R.I. u/s 27 of the Arms Act and R.I. for 1 year each u/s 25 of the Arms Act. It may also be noticed that 2 other accused were acquitted and only these 2 appellants were convicted. 3. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is two fold. The first is that the police officials statements should not be considered sufficient to convict these appellants. Secondly, offence u/s 27 Arms Act is not made out, and lastly that sentences may be reduced in view of the long pendency of this appeal. 4. The statements of police officials namely Ramkishore Gautam (PW 5) and Sahibsingh Sengar (PW 2) who are main witnesses, was considered by the trial court. Recovered arms and ammunitions have been exhibited. The testimony of these 2 witnesses is flawless supported by actual recovery. There appears no reason why they should falsely implicate them. It is common knowledge that public witnesses turn hostile against criminals. The Police Officials should be considered as honest as others unless something is brought on record regarding their enmity against the accused. In this case this is not shown. 5. There appears no reason why they should falsely implicate them. It is common knowledge that public witnesses turn hostile against criminals. The Police Officials should be considered as honest as others unless something is brought on record regarding their enmity against the accused. In this case this is not shown. 5. This court has perused the testimony of the witnesses as also the FIR and the documents. This court is satisfied about the correctness of the conclusions reached by the trial Court about the possession of these fire arms and ammunitions. 6. The other question is what offence was committed. There is no doubt that possession of illicit fire arms and ammunitions is an offence punishable u/s 25-1B of the Arms Act as it is contravention of section 3 of the Arms Act. But is section 27 of the Arms Act is also attracted ? Section 27 requires using of arms and ammunitions in contravention of section 5 of the Arms Act or in contravention of section 7 of the Arms Act. In the present case the trial court did not hold that there was any user of the fire arms. It only held that there was possession of unlawful fire arms. That does not means user. This court has also gone through the evidence and the statement of the above witnesses nowhere discloses it that the fire arms and ammunitions were in any manner used. It is not stated that any shot was fired. So there was no evidence of user of these fire arms. Section 27 of the Arms Act is therefore not attracted. 7. In view of the above discussion the appellant have to be acquitted of the charge u/s 27 of the Arms Act. But their conviction u/s 25-1B of the Arms Act is confirmed. 8. There is minimum sentence of one year prescribed u/s 25-1B of the Arms Act. The sentence awarded by the trial court under that provision is R.I. for 1 year. That sentence is therefore confirmed. 9. The appeal is accordingly partly accepted. The appellants are acquitted of the charge u/s 27 of the Arms Act. But their appeal regarding their conviction and sentence u/s 25-1B of the Arms Act is dismissed. They shall surrender to their bonds to undergo their remaining part of the sentence. Appeal allowed