JUDGMENT : M.R. Verma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.6.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, whereby the appellant- accused (hereafter referred to as 'the accused') has been convicted under section 397 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 797 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 25(1-A) of the Indian Arms Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Tek Chand (PW-1) was engaged as a driver of Taxi No. HP-01-187 by its owner Bhagat Ram on 25.5.2000. On 26.5.2000. When PW-1 had parked the taxi at Taxi Stand, Manali, he was approached by the accused, who was accompanied by a girl and enquired the fare from Manali to Delhi. PW-1 told him that the fare was Rs. 5000/-. The accused, considering the fair too much, requested PW-1 to drop him and his companion at Kullu for which the fair was settled at Rs. 550/- When they reached at Kullu, accused asked PW-1 to take them to some more distance to which PW-1 agreed. When they reached at Bhuntar, accused requested PW-1 to take them to pandoh, where he was to meet one of his friends. When PW-1 demanded payment of fare, the accused told him that fare would be paid after reaching at Bhuntar. When they reached ahead of Kothi Nala towards Pandoh side accused asked PW-1 to stop the vehicle, as he wanted to urinate. The taxi was then stopped on one side of the road and the accused alighted from the taxi and went to urinate. In the meanwhile, PW-1 also alighted from the taxi and went to urinate, leaving the keys of the taxi in the taxi. The taxi was then stopped on one side of the road and the accused alighted from the taxi and went to urinate. In the meanwhile, PW-1 also alighted from the taxi and went to urinate, leaving the keys of the taxi in the taxi. When they returned after urinating, accused told PW-1 that he should have sexual intercourse with the accompanying girl, (PW-18) which offer was refused by PW-1, whereupon the accused took out a pistol from the pocket of his pant. In the meanwhile, a vehicle came from Kullu side and PW-1 tried to stop the same, but it did not stop. The accused then threatened PW-1 that in case he raised any voice, he would be killed. PW-1 then requested the accused not to shoot him and he might not pay the fare. However, the accused fired at him with the pistol. The bullet went off touching the face of PW-1 near the left side of his eye and as an impact of the injury, PW-1 fell unconscious. The accused and the girl, in the meanwhile ran away from the spot in the taxi towards Pandoh. After some time, a bus came from Mandi side in which PW-1 took lift to come to Pandoh. In the bus, LHC Kishore Chand (PW-8) was travailing and on his inquiry, PW-1 narrated the occurrence to him. When the bus reached at Deot, PW-8 telephonically reported the occurrence to Police Post, Pandoh. He took PW-1 to Pandoh from where he was taken to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, where his statement Ex. PW-1/A was recorded by ASI Des Raj, Incharge, Police Post, Pandoh (PW-12. On the basis of the said statement formal FIR Ex. PW-13/A was registered at Police Station. Sadar, Mandi under sections 307, 392, 120-B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 3. In the meanwhile, on receipt of information about the occurrence from Police Post Pandoh, SHO, Sadar, Mandi, S.I. Om Parkash (PW-15) laid a Naka on Victoria Bridge at Mandi and the Taxi HP 01-0187 driven by the accused was intercepted while it had dashed against a three wheeler No. HP- 05- 0960, and Sarla Devi (PW-18 was also found sitting in the taxi. The van along with one stereo and its broken number plate which had broken because of the collision with the three wheeler was taken in possession vide memo Ex.PW-3/A. Personal search of the accused was conducted and he was found in possession of one pistol Ext. P-4, a fired' cartridge case and a live cartridge Ex. P-5 which were taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW-3/B. 4. On medical examination of PW-1, Dr. Virender Thakur (PW-6), found the following injuries on the person of PW-1: "Penetrating lacerated wound over left Zeugmatic process 2 cm from the outlay angle of left eye measuring i.5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm in size with inverted margins, oval shaped, irregular with fresh bleeding from the wound. There was blackening tattooing of left cheek. Bullet shaped hard material palpubable over the left mandible lying vertically and freeling moving.'' And issued MLC Ex. PW-/B and referred PW-1 for examination by a Surgeon PW-1 was then examined by Dr. A.B. Gupta (PW-7), who gave his opinion Ex. PW-7/A. As per his opinion, the injury found on the person of PW-1 was of simple nature having been caused within 24 hours with a bullet. PW-1 was also referred to Radiologist Dr. Rakesh Kumar (PW-9) who, on the basis of the skiagrams Ex. PW-9/A-1 and A-Z, gave his report ex. PW-9/A-3. The blood stained shirt Ex. P-a, pant Ex. P-2 and handkerchief Ex. P-3 belonging to PW-1 were also taken in possession by the investigating officer (W-15) vide memo Ex. PW-1/B. The recovered pistol Ex. P-4, one fired cartridge case and one live cartridge Ex. P-5 and other material were sent in a sealed parcel to CFSL,. Chandigarh, for opinion of Ballistic expert. The report received from the said Laboratory is Ex. PW-14/A in which the following opinion was given: "On thorough examination and comparison of individual characteristic marks present on crime and test fired cartride cases under the comparison microscope came to the conclusion that the cartride case marked C/1 had been fired through the country made pistol marked 'A' and it could not have been fired through any other firearm b because every firearm has its own individual characteristic marks." 5. Test identification parade of the accused and his companion Sarla Devi (PW-18) was conducted before judicial Magistrate 1st Class (11), Mandi (PW-16) and the memo of identification is Ex. Test identification parade of the accused and his companion Sarla Devi (PW-18) was conducted before judicial Magistrate 1st Class (11), Mandi (PW-16) and the memo of identification is Ex. PW-16/C. Sanction to prosecute the accused under the provisions of Arms Act was obtained from the District Magistrate, Mandi, which is Ex.PW-5/A. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted by the concerned SHO against the accused and Sarla Devi (PW-18). However, at the time of consideration of charge, it was found that PW-18 was not involved in the commission of offences, therefore, she was discharged. However, a charge under sections 397 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty. 6. To prove the charge against the accused prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the incriminating evidence and stated that he was roaming with Sarla Devi (PW-18) on the Victoria Bridge to enjoy the scenic beauty of the place and was falsely involved in the case by the police because they were strangers to the place. The accused however did not lead any evidence in defence. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial judge held the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. Dushyant Dhadwal, Advocate, who has appeared as Amicus Curiae for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General and have also gone through the records. 8. The learned counsel for the accused assailed the impugned conviction and sentence on the following grounds: (i) that the version of the prosecution is not corroborated by material independent witnesses; (ii) that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the other material relied by the prosecution; (iii) that identity of the accused is not established; and (iv) That in view of the sentence having been awarded to the accused under section 25 of the Arms Act, no punishment could have been awarded to him under section 27 of the Arms Act. Ground No. (i) 9. Ground No. (i) 9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that PW-18 whose statement has been heavily relied upon by the trial court was sent up for trial by the police as a co-accused in the case and she was not examined as an approver, therefore, her statement could not be relied upon to convict the accused. The independent witnesses, namely, Niraj Kumar (PW-3) and Niraj Sharma (PW-4) of the seizure of the taxi and apprehension of the accused have not supported the prosecution version and no other independent witness in this regard was produced by the prosecution. Even Balk Ram and Hoshiar Singh who were present at the time of seizure of taxi and apprehension of the accused have not been examined. Thus, it is not proved that the accused, at the relevant time, was driving the taxi in question and it was seized from his possession. Therefore, the prosecution version is rendered unbelievable as a whole. It was further contended that the explanation of the accused that he was just roaming about in Mandi and at the relevant time was at the bridge along with PW-18 to enjoy the scenic beauty and was arrested on suspicion is most probable. 10. It is case of the prosecution that after firing a pistol shot and thereby injuring PW-1, the accused along with PW-18 fled away from the place of occurrence in taxi in question. On coming to know of the occurrence from PW-1 Kishore Chand telephonically reported the occurrence to police Post. Pandoh. On receipt of information from police Post Pandoh PW-15 had laid a Naka at Victoria Bridge Mandi where the said taxi driven by the accused was sized and accused and PW-18 who was also traveling in the taxi were apprehended in the presence of PW-3 and PW-4. 11. PW-1 has fully supported the version that the accused after having injured him with a pistol shot, fled away in the taxi towards Mandi. He has further supported the prosecution version about his having narrated the occurrence to a police personnel and the information having been conveyed to the police Post, Pandoh by such police personnel. Statement of PW-1 in this regard is fully corroborated by PW-8 and MC Nand Lal (PW-17) read with rapat rajnamcha Ex. PW-17/A. There is nothing material inn the cross examination of PW-1, PW-8 and PW-17 to suspect their version. Statement of PW-1 in this regard is fully corroborated by PW-8 and MC Nand Lal (PW-17) read with rapat rajnamcha Ex. PW-17/A. There is nothing material inn the cross examination of PW-1, PW-8 and PW-17 to suspect their version. 12. The investigating officer (PW-15) wholaid Naka at Victoria Bridge has stated that on receipt of information about the occurrence, he along with HC Balak Ram and Constable Hoshiar Singh went to Victoria Bridge and laid the Naka. PW-3 and PW-4 were also present. He has further stated that the taxi in question being driven by the accused and PW-18 being the other occupant, came at the bridge at about 9.45 A.M. and was signalled to stop but in a bid to escape the taxi struck against a three wheeler parked there and thereafter the accused and PW-18 were apprehended and the taxi was seized in the presence of PW-3 and PW-4. On search of the accused country made pistol (Ex.P-4) were recovered from his possession. There is no material in the cross examination of this witness which may render his statement inherently false or improbable. It had been suggested to him that someone else had caused injuries to PW-1 and the accused that was on the bridge only to see scenic beauty had been falsely implicated. These suggestions have been denied by the witness. However, no such suggestion had been put to this witness which may be a reason for him to falsely implicate the accused. 13. PW-3 and PW-4 have not supported the version of the prosecution regarding apprehension of the accused and his search and consequential recoveries. It may, however, be pointed out that during the examination of PW-4 the trial judge had observed that from the demeanor of his witness and manner of replying to the questions put to him by the public prosecutor, it appeared that he was suppressing the truth and evading answers. At another stage of his examination, it was observed that from his demeanor, it appeared that he was deliberately and intentionally making a false statement. These unchallenged observations carry presumption of correctness about what has been seen and visualised by the learned trial judge. At another stage of his examination, it was observed that from his demeanor, it appeared that he was deliberately and intentionally making a false statement. These unchallenged observations carry presumption of correctness about what has been seen and visualised by the learned trial judge. Even PW-4 has supported the prosecution case to the extent that a white Maruti Van being driven by a male and a woman being other occupant thereof, struck against a three wheeler at Victoria Bridge and the police arrested the driver of the vehicle. Further he has admitted his signatures on Ex./A, PW-3/B and PW-3/C. he admits that these Exhibits were not got signed from him by the police under any threat. He has further admitted that he does not sign papers without reading them. Thus, the witness has no plausible reason to explain as to why he had signed Exs. PW-3/A, PW-3/C respectively memos regarding seizure of the taxi in question, search of the accused and consequential recovery of Ex. P-4 and P-5, and sketch map of the recovered pistol and live cartridge without knowing the contents thereof. 14. PW-3 also resiled from his statement under section 161 Cr.PC. and was cross examined for the prosecution. He has also supported the prosecution version to the extent that a while Maruti van driven by a male while a woman was also sitting there in, came at Victoria Bridge. The driver of the car was in a hurry and was blowing whom constantly and struck the van with his three wheeler. The driver of the van was apprehended by the police. While during the search of the accused in his presence, he has admitted his signatures on the memos Exs. PW-3/A. W-3 and PW-3/C. he has, however, claimed that these documents were prepared by the police to ascertain the damage caused to his three wheeler and were got signed from him at the police station. He has claimed that he left the spot immediately after the apprehension of the driver of the van. This unnatural behaviour belies his statement. When the van had hit his three wheeler, it is contrary to natural human conduct that he choose to leave the place without caring to find out as to who was the person who had hit his three wheeler. This unnatural behaviour belies his statement. When the van had hit his three wheeler, it is contrary to natural human conduct that he choose to leave the place without caring to find out as to who was the person who had hit his three wheeler. He has not properly explained the reason (s) for signing the above memos without any personal knowledge about the contents thereof. Thus this witness apparently had not made true and full disclosure of the facts within his knowledge for the reasons best known to him. 15. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time, PW-18 was accompanying the accused. It is not suggested to her in her cross examination that she had been or is inimical towards the accused and no motive has been imputed to her to make a false statement against the accused either by way of cross examination or in the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr. P.C.. She has fully supported the version of PW-1 about the causing of injuries to him by the accused by firing at him and taking away of the taxi in question by the accused. She has further supported the prosecution version about the apprehension of the accused by the police at Victoria Bridge and the circumstances leading to such apprehension. Ex. P-4 was however, not recovered in her presence. 16. The statement of this witness had been assailed as unreliable on the ground that she was herself an accused in the case and, therefore, does not stand on a better footing than an approver but she was never tendered pardon in accordance with law and that she was under pressure to make the statement. 17. It is not in dispute that PW-18 was challenged by the police as co-accused in the case. Neither during investigation nor at the trial, pardon was tendered to her. In fact, she was discharged at the stage of consideration of charge vide order dated 1.12.2001, as grounds to proceed against her were not some by the material placed before the trial court. In these circumstances, neither she can be termed an approver nor an accomplice as no prima facie case was made out against her. She was admittedly summoned as a witness on application of the prosecution moved after she had been discharged. Therefore, for her examination as a witness, the procedure for tendering pardon etc. In these circumstances, neither she can be termed an approver nor an accomplice as no prima facie case was made out against her. She was admittedly summoned as a witness on application of the prosecution moved after she had been discharged. Therefore, for her examination as a witness, the procedure for tendering pardon etc. was not attracted nor her statement can be treated on the same footing as that of an approver. In the facts and circumstances of the case, her statement has to be treated as a statement of any other witness. Her statement which appears to be natural and confidence inspiring can, therefore, not be brushed aside and it lends corroboration and credibility to the statement of PW-1 and PW-15. 18. In view of the evidence led by the prosecution, non production of Balak Ram and Hoshiar Singh or any other witness is of no use and consequence, more so when from the record it does not emerge that said Balak Ram and Hoshiar Singh witnessed the recovery and seizure. 19. In view of the above discussion, this ground urged to assail the impugned judgment does not hold good. Ground No. (ii) 20. This ground calls for examination in view of the settled position in law that minor contradictions which are bound to occur because of individual perception and lapse of time and do not go to the root of the case, have to be ignored. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that statement of PW-1 about the arrival of a vehicle on the spot and his signalling it to stop immediately before he was allegedly fired at is contradictory of his version as in his statement under section 154 Cr. P.C. Ex PW-/A A comparative, perusal of Ext. PW-1 A and statement of PW-1 in the court reveals that there is no contradiction as sought to be made out. The witness has stated to the same effect though in different manner. 21. The other contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel is that as, per the witnesses, the three wheeler was struck by the car when it was in the center of the bridge whereas in the spot map Ex./PW-15/D the three wheeler is shown at point 'E' beyond the bridge. Site plan Ex. PW-15/D evidently depicts the position as after the car had struck against the three wheeler. Site plan Ex. PW-15/D evidently depicts the position as after the car had struck against the three wheeler. Therefore, the alleged contradiction is non existent. 22. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the fired cartridge allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused is not proved to have been fired from pistol Ex. P-4 as it could not be inserted therein and the bullet found in the body of PW-1 as per the medical evidence, is not shown to have been fired with Ex. P-4, which belies the prosecution case. 23. It is not disputed that PW-1 had sustained bullet injury. Suggested defense is that someone else might have caused the injury to PW-1. In view of statement of Dr. Virender Singh (PW-6) read with MLC Ex./PW-6/B, PW-1 had sustained the bullet injury capable of being caused by a fire with pistol Ex. P-4. As per the statement of Banu Pratrap Singh (PW-19) read with report Ex. PW-147A the recovered fired cartridge was found to have beer fired with Ex. P-4. The circumstance that the fired cartridge could not be inserted easily in Ex. P-4 has been duly explained by PW-19 in the following terms:- "During firing every cartridge develop huge amount of pressure. Due to this pressure each cartridge of case expands against the barrel. Since a country made fire arm have some space in the chamber so after expansion the fired cartridge case can be fixed in the chamber of country made fire arm. Since this cartridge case has expanded so it cannot be inserted easily in the chamber of the Ex. P4. it was removed forcibly from the chamber of Ex. P4 and similarly it will have to be inserted forcibly." 24. In view of the above discussion, there are no such material contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution which may go to the root of the case and thus, demolish the prosecution version. Therefore, this ground also does not hold good. Ground No. (iii) 25. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that identity of the accused as assailant is not established. According to the learned counsel, the identification parade of the accused was not conducted in accordance with law. The learned counsel has referred to some alleged irregularities in conducting identification parade of the accused. 26. Ground No. (iii) 25. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that identity of the accused as assailant is not established. According to the learned counsel, the identification parade of the accused was not conducted in accordance with law. The learned counsel has referred to some alleged irregularities in conducting identification parade of the accused. 26. In my view, the conducting of test identification parade in this case is rendered an uncalled for formality. Be it stated that the accused has been identified as the person firing at PW-1 by PW-1 and PW-18. There is no dispute that PW-18 was acquainted with the accused and identification of accused as the offender by her cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be a case of mistaken identity. The accused had been traveling in the taxi driven by PW-1 and had been talking with him for such time as was sufficient for PW-1 to preserve the facial features of the accused. He has no reason to facial implicate the accused if innocent. Similarly, PW-18 has no cause to falsely involve the accused. Therefore, identity of the accused as the offender is fully established in view of their statements. Therefore, the objection as to the conducting of identification parade is rendered just academic and need not be gone into. 27. Since the identification of accused by PW1 and PW18 as the offender cannot be doubted, therefore, the contention that identity of the ; accused as the offender is not established, cannot be sustained. Ground No. (iv) 28. it was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that inn view of the frame of the head of charge under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the allegations against the accused, and the evidence on record in this regard even if believed for the sake of arguments, the accused could not have been convicted and sentenced under section 25 as well as section 27 of the Arms Act. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel relied on F. Rodingliana v. State of Mizoram 1984 CRI. L.J. 602). 29. In F. Rodigliana's case (supra), the accused was found in possession of a firearm and cartridges without any valid license or permit. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel relied on F. Rodingliana v. State of Mizoram 1984 CRI. L.J. 602). 29. In F. Rodigliana's case (supra), the accused was found in possession of a firearm and cartridges without any valid license or permit. At the trial the accused was held guilty of the commission of offence punishable under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and was convicted under both these penal provisions. In appeal, the High Court of Gauhati held as under "While the prosecution has been able to prove its case u/s. 25 (1) (a) of the Arms act, there is no iota of evidence regarding the ingredients of the penal Section 27 of the Arms Act. Section 27 provides for punishment for possessing arms etc. with intent to use them for unlawful purpose. There is no evidence to show that the accused-appellant had the intent to use this pistol and the ammunition for any unlawful purpose or to enable any other person to use the same for any unlawful purpose. It is one thing to posses the arms/ammunitions in contravention of Section 3 of the Act and quite a different thing to possess the same with intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose or to enable any other person to use the same for unlawful purpose. So it has been wrong on the part of the learned trial court to convict the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act, as if, as a corollary to its order of conviction under section 25 (1) (a) of the Act. The conviction under section 27 of the Act has to be set aside." 30. It may be pointed out here that grounds (i) to (iii) supra challenging the impugned judgment on the factual aspects have already been held unsustainable. On the other hand, in view of the cogent, reliable and trustworthy eye account of the occurrence given by PW-1 and PW-18, corroborated by medical evidence and opinion received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, it is fully and firmly established that the accused attempted to cause death of PW-1 by firing at him with pistol Ex. P-4 and in such attempt caused bullet injury to PW-1. having done so, the accused removed the van belonging to Bhagat Ram from the possession of his driver PW-1. P-4 and in such attempt caused bullet injury to PW-1. having done so, the accused removed the van belonging to Bhagat Ram from the possession of his driver PW-1. It is further proved in view of the statements of PW-18 and PW-15 that the accused while driving the said van was apprehended at Victoria Bridge, Mandi and Ex. P-4, fired cartridge and one live cartridge Ex. P-5 were recovered from his possession. As already stated PW-1, PW-15 and PW-18 had no previous enmity or ill will to motivate them to falsely implicate the accused in the crime, therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve them. Thus, the factual aspects of case are fully proved. For the purpose of the present ground, the material and relevant proved facts are that the accused was in possession of the pistol Ex. P-4 and live cartridge and he fired at PW-1 causing injury to him. It is nobody's case that the accused had a license or permit to possess and use the aforesaid firearm and ammunition. It has to be determined on the basis of these proved facts as to whether the accused has been rightly convicted under sections 25 and 27 or he could not be convicted and sentenced under both these provisions. 31. Now reverting back to the ratio in F. Rodingliana's case (supra), it may be pointed out that in that case the accused was found in possession of the firearm and the ammunitions. It was not the case against him that he used or permitted to be used the fire arm and ammunition found in his possession for unlawful purpose. Whereas in the case in hand, the accused used the fire arm and the ammunitions in his possession in an attempt to kill PW-1 resulting in injuries to him. Therefore, the ratio in F. Roingliana's case is not applicable to the case in hand. 32. The impugned judgment does not specify as to under which sub section of section 27 of the Arms Act the accused has been convicted and sentenced. However, in view of his having been sentenced under section 25(1A) which concerns prohibited arm and ammunition, it can be conclusively gathered that he had been convicted and sentenced under sub section 2 of section 27 of the Arms Act. 33. However, in view of his having been sentenced under section 25(1A) which concerns prohibited arm and ammunition, it can be conclusively gathered that he had been convicted and sentenced under sub section 2 of section 27 of the Arms Act. 33. Sub section 1-A of section 25 of the Arms Act under which the accused, apart from section 27 of the said Act, has been sentenced reads as under: "(1-a) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall' be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine." 34. Sub section 2 of section 27 of the Arms Act reads as follow: "(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine." 35. It is clear on a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that to constitute an offence under section 25 (1A), the accused must acquire, possess or carry prohibited arm such as a pistol and or prohibited ammunition such as the ammunition containing noxious liquid whereas to constitute an offence under sub section 2 of section 27, the accused must use such arm or ammunition. 36. In the case in hand, the accused was not merely in possession of Ex. P-4 but he unlawfully used it to fire at PW-1. To possess a prohibited arm and to use it are two distinct acts. Therefore, the accused is guilty of the commission of (i) possessing a prohibited arm (Ex.P-4) and (ii) of using it. Thus, the conviction of the accused both under sections 25 and 27 cannot be turned as illegal. Therefore, he has rightly been convicted and sentenced under the relevant provisions of sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and the contention to the contrary is unsustainable. 37. As a result, this appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 38. Thus, the conviction of the accused both under sections 25 and 27 cannot be turned as illegal. Therefore, he has rightly been convicted and sentenced under the relevant provisions of sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and the contention to the contrary is unsustainable. 37. As a result, this appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 38. Before parting, I would place on record my appreciation for the assistance rendered to this court by Shri Dushyant Dhadwal, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, when the legal aid counsel failed to appear and assist the court to ensure early disposal of this jail appeal.