Judgment Kiran Anand Lall, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.2.1994 vide which the court of Sessions Judge, Bathinda, convicted the appellant under Section 30 of the Arms Act (for short "the Act") and released him on probation under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. The prosecution case is that during the investigation of a case under section 302 IPC, one Major Singh, accused therein, got recovered a.12 bore double-barrel gun, with which he had committed the murder, from a heap of brickbats lying at the brick kiln, in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by him. The gun, it was further found, belonged to Surjit Singh appellant, who was its license-holder. Resultantly, the present case under Sec.30 of the Act was registered against him for having parted with its possession, in violation of the rules and conditions of the license. 3. On completion of investigation, challan was filed against the appellant, and on receipt thereof, by way of commitment, the court of learned Sessions Judge completed the trial, convicted the appellant, and released him on probation. Feeling aggrieved with the verdict of conviction and sentence, the appellant has challenged the same in appeal. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is entitled to acquittal, as there was no evidence on record indicating that the gun was handed over to Major Singh (accused in the murder case), by the appellant. According to him, police had, infact, taken the gun from the womenfolk of the family of the appellant, and had, later on, implicated the latter in this case. Well, it is not in dispute that the licensed gun in question belongs to the appellant and the license in his favour is Ex. P1. And once it is so, the onus was on him to have proved as to how, when, and under what circumstances, the gun came into the hands of Major Singh or the police. His plea before the trial court was that police took it into possession from the women-folk of his family. But, this plea remained unsubstantiated, as he did not lead any evidence in this regard. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General also pointed out that the appellant had not pleaded any enmity or ill-will with the police. His plea before the trial court was that police took it into possession from the women-folk of his family. But, this plea remained unsubstantiated, as he did not lead any evidence in this regard. 5. Learned Deputy Advocate General also pointed out that the appellant had not pleaded any enmity or ill-will with the police. As such, there was no reason for the police to implicate him in a false case. He was licensee of the gun, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, learned trial court rightly held that he had violated the conditions of his license, by having parted with the possession of the gun, or in any case, in having not kept it in his safe custody. 6. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as being without any merit, and it is so ordered.