JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is filed by the accused-appellant challenging the impugned judgment dated 7.11.86 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, in Sessions Case No. 40/84 convicting the accused-appellant for offence u/s 25 of the Indian Arms Act and awarding seven month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and also canvassed before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned RR I have scrutinised and re-appreciated the evidence on record. n 3. On re-appreciation of the prosecution story as emerges is that prosecution was launched on the First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered on the statement of Kishna Ram on 28.3.84 in Police Station, Dungargarh. In this F.I.R., he stated that the appellant Ramesh is married to the daughter of Arjun Ram. Arjun Ram is relative of Kishna Ram. Kishna Ram was not allowing Arjun Ram to send his daughter i.e. wife of Ramesh with Ramesh. Due to this reason, Ramesh was chemical with Kishna Ram. He further alleged that about 15 days earlier than the incident, Ramesh had come to take away his wife but Kishna Ram again obstructed and did not allow him to take away his wife. On the day of the incident at about 1.30 PM., he came from his field in his car. Ram Lal Mali was also with him. It is alleged that then Ramesh came there and took him aside and then he took out a pistol from his pent with the intention to fire at him but he caught hold of him and Ram Lal also came there. Later on, Hanunt Singh also reached there. They caught hold of him and he was not able to fire. Police also reached by then. He was produced before the Police alongwith the pistol. On this F.I.R., a case u/s 307 I.P.C. and 25 of the Indian Arms Act was registered against Ramesh after investigation, a challan was filed. The trial of the case was ultimately conducted by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu. The learned Session Judge acquitted the appellant from the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. but convicted him u/s 25 of the Indian Arms Act as aforesaid. 4. The evidence as appreciated by the learned trial Judge is properly assessed. The trial of the case was ultimately conducted by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu. The learned Session Judge acquitted the appellant from the offence u/s 307 I.P.C. but convicted him u/s 25 of the Indian Arms Act as aforesaid. 4. The evidence as appreciated by the learned trial Judge is properly assessed. The findings are well recorded and I see no reason to interfere with the order of conviction. The accused person is on ball for last about 14 years. To put him back in jail after the appellant led peaceful life of ordinary citizen, would be rather unjust. 5. In the result, therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of imprisonment is set aside and the sentence of fine is maintained. The accused is already on bail, he need not surrender to his bail bonds. His bail bonds are cancelled. *******