JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 22.5.1989 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Merta in Cr.Case No. 413/88 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondent for offence u/s. 8/25(1)(b)(a) of the Arms Act. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) On 5.1.1988 PW-2 Richhpal Singh, SHO Police Station Merta City and PW-4 Prem Nath Soni, Dy.S.P. were making investigation of FIR No. 5/88 u/ss. 302, 404 & 120-B IPC and in that case, the accused-respondent was one of the accused persons and during investigation of that case, the accused-respondents gave information Ex.P/6 to PW-4 Premnath that he could get recovered a pistol of 12 bore from his house and that information was reduced into writing by PW-4 Premnath Soni and the same is Ex.P/6. In consequence of that information, PW-4 Premnath Soni got recovered one pistol through fard Ex.P/1 on the same day i.e. on 5.1.1988 from upper storey of the house of accused-respondent and motbir witnesses of that Fard are PW-6 Chand Mal and PW-1 Bana Ram. 3. After that PW-2 Richhpal Singh, chalked out regular FIR No. 7/88 (Ex.P/4) on 5.1.1988 for offence u/s. 3/25 of the Arms Act. 4. The accused-respondent was arrested in this case on 17.1.1988 through Fard Ex.P/8. 5. That after usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused-respondent. 6. On 26.4.1988, the learned Magistrate framed charge for offence u/s. 3/25(1)(b)(a) of the Arms Act against the accused-respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. During trial, as many as 6 witnesses have been produced on behalf of the prosecution and statement of accused-respondent was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and no witnesses was examined in defence. 8. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondent for the aforesaid offence through his judgment and order dated 22.5.1989 inter alia holding : (i) That since the accused-respondent was accused in another criminal case, therefore, recovery if made on the information of accused-respondent given in that case and since the accused-respondent was not accused in the present FIR, therefore, the so called recovery cannot connect the accused-respondent for offence u/s. 3/25 of the Arms Act. (ii) That the fact that in this case though the recovery was made by PW-2 Richhpal Singh and PW-4 Premnath Soni on 5.1.1988, but arrest of accused-respondent has been shown on 17.1.1988 clearly goes to show that accused-respondent was implicated falsely so as to make out a case for further remaining in police remand. 9. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order this appeal has been filed by the State. 10. In this appeal, it has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that since recovery has been made at the instance of the accused-respondent, therefore, he should have been convicted for the aforesaid offence and the judgment and order dated 22.5.1989 should be set aside and this appeal should be allowed. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the judgment and order of the trial Magistrate are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same do not call for interference by this Court. 12. I have heard both and perused the record. 13. From perusing the so called information Ex.P/6 given by the accused-respondent to PW-4 Premnath Soni, it is very much clear that the information pertains to FIR No. 5/88 for offence u/ss. 302, 404 & 120 IPC and the learned trial Judge has rightly observed that any information given in that case and recovery was made in that case, for that separate case which has been registered against the accused-respondent is palpably wrong and that information which was given in another criminal case would be of no avail for the purpose of prosecuting the accused-respondent. It is surprising that when information was given by the accused-respondent in that murder case, how a separate case has been registered against the accused-respondent for offence u/s. 3/25 of the Arms Act and further more, it is also surprising that after registering the case under the Arms Act on 5.1.1988 through FIR Ex.P/4, the arrest of the accused-respondent was shown through Fard Ex.P/8 on 17.1.1988. Therefore, the findings of learned Judicial Magistrate that it is a bogus case are liable to be confirmed one and this State appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. Therefore, the findings of learned Judicial Magistrate that it is a bogus case are liable to be confirmed one and this State appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. In my considered opinion, the judgment of the learned Magistrate is based on correct appreciation of evidence and the reasons which has been assigned by the learned Magistrate are reasonable and plausible and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished and this Court sitting and hearing appeal against acquittal would not like to disturb the order of acquittal merely on flimsy grounds. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan v. State of U.P., reported in 2001 JT (8) SC 200 has held that the High Court is fully empowered to review the evidence while hearing appeal against acquittal, but it should be very slow in disturbing the findings of facts arrived at by the learned trial Magistrate. From this point of view also, the findings of learned trial Magistrate are liable to be confirmed one.For the reasons mentioned above, the present State appeal is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 22.5.1989 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Merta.Appeal dismissed. *******