IMPORTANT POINT
If a person is carrying gun and ammunition for the use of the licensee of the gun he is not in illegal possession of the gun under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

JUDGMENT

M. M. Punchhi, J.- The appellant Rama stands convicted for an offence under section 25 of the Arms Act. In support of his appeal Cr. M. No. 6025 of 1983 has been filed to put on record a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kamal dated 10th January 1980 passed in Sessions Trial No. 46 of 1982 (State v. Ramo and four others). From the file of the said trial, the statement of one of the co-accused Satnam Singh made under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 4th January 1983 has also been filed. The aforesaid two documents are sought to be introduced as additional evidence. Having heard learned counsel on the subject, I am inclined to admit them on record as I feel that their availability and use would promote the cause of justice and with the aid thereof, the case in hand can be understood in its proper perspective and proceed to a logical conclusion.

2. The judgment afore-referred to may well be called as the main case. The appellant along with four other was arrested by a police party from a pit near the Yamuna river. All those persons were said to be variously armed. The appellant statedly at the time of his arrest was found to be armed with a D.B.B.L. gun of.) 2 bore, Exhibit P. 1, and a bandolier, Exhihit P. 2, having six live cartridges, Exhibit P. 3/1-6, also of .12 bore. Such act of theirs invited on them prosecution under sections 399/402, Indian Penal Code, in the main case. The act of being in possession of a D.B.B.L. gun and the live cartridges brought on the appellant prosecution under section 25 of the Arms Act which is the instant case. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused in the main case by observing as follows:

"The evidence led by the prosecution only establishes that all the five accused were found armed when arrested in deserted pits of the bed of river Yamuna. That by itself will not be sufficient to hold that by doing that act, they had committed offence under section 394 and/ or 402, Indian Penal Code."

With regard to the weapons, he observed as follows:

"Order regarding the disposal of D.B.B.L. gun, Exhibit P. 1, are (is) being passed separately in the connected Arms Act case against Rama."

One of the accused in the main case Satnam Singh in his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, had pleaded as follows:

"The police had taken me in illegal detention in the case relating to dacoity of village Sardapur about a month before the alleged occurrence of this case. The police had brought my licensed gun, Exhibit P. 1, from my house. Subsequently I was falsely implicated in this case."

3. This appeal may well be proceeded on the assumption that the gun in question was found on the person of the appellant as also its ammunition. The question arises whether in the circumstances, it would amount to be in possession of the appellant so as to bring his case within the ambit of section 25 of the Arms Act. Under sub-section (l)(a) of section 25 of the said Act, it has been made penal for a person to acquire or have in his possession or carry any fire-arm or ammunition in contravention of section 3 of the Act. Such act of his would attract punishment for a term of punishment, which may extend to three years on with fine, or with both. Now section 3 prohibits any person to acquire, or have in his possession, or to carry any tire-arm or ammunition, unless holds in that behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. However, the proviso thereto safeguards that a person may, without himself holding a licence carry any fire-arm or ammunition in the presence, or under the written authority, of the holder of the licence for repair or for renewal of the licence or for use by such holder. The prosecution case thus at best is that the appellant was found carrying the fire-arm and ammunition at a time when the licensee thereon namely Satnam Singh, was present. That state of affairs can by no means lead to the inference that the appel