M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 8-10-1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, in Special Case No. 43 of 1995 whereby and where-under the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.L for two years for the offence committed under Sec. 25(1B) of the Arms Act and R.I. four years for the offence under: Sec. 26(1) of the Arms Act. However, both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The appellant was put on trial for the offence alleged to have been committed under Secs. 25(1B) and 26(1) of the Arms Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10-5-1994 while on patrolling round, the officer-incharge, Bistupur P.S., who is the informant, got confidential information that the appellant, an absconding accused in Bistupur P.S. Case No. 67/94 has taken shelter in a house behind Yadav Petrol Pump in Road No. 14 at Mago, whereupon the informant arranged a raiding party and proceeded with other police officials including officer-incharge of Mago P.S. and raided the said house. The appellant was found sleeping on a cot in a room and on search a single barrel gun was recovered from beneath his bed. It was alleged that another single regular gun was engraved and wrapped in a cloth and 14 live cartridges were found concealed in a nearby sofa. The further case of the prosecution was that on search of the person of the appellant, 25 paper packets of brown sugar was recovered from the right pocket of the-full pant of the appellant. The appellant was accordingly prosecuted under the aforesaid provisions of the Arms Act and also under Sec. 21 of the NDPS Act and the appellant was put on trial.

3. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary adduced from the side of the prosecution, came to a finding that the appellant was in conscious possession of the firearms and had concealed the same with the intention that it may not be known to the public servants. However, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution story that the appellant was having paper packets of brown sugar and, therefore, it was held that the appellant was not liable to be convicted under Sec. 21 of the NDPS Act.

4. I have heard Mr. Jai Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S.N. Rajgarhia, learned counsel appearing for the State.

5. So far as the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 25(1B) of the Arms Act is concerned, I do not find any infirmity in the order of conviction of the appellant for the illegal possession of the firearms. In fact, the prosecution has established that the appellant was in conscious possession of the firearms.

6. Mr. Jai Prakash, leaned counsel for the appellant, very fairly confined his argument on the question of conviction under Sec. 26(1) of the Arms Act. The learned counsel submitted that merely concealment of firearms is not an offence. It must be established that concealment was with the intention that it, may not be known to the public servant. The learned counsel further submitted that the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 26(1) of the Arms Act can not be sustained in law in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. Before appreciating the submission of the learned counsel, it would be useful to look into the provisions of Sec. 26(3) of the Arms Act, which reads as under:

"26. Secret Contraventions. - (1) Whenever does any act in contravention of any of the provisions of Sections 3,4, 10 or 12 in such manner as to indicate an intention that such act may not be known to any public servant or to any person employed or working upon a railway, aircraft, vessel, vehicle or any other means of conveyance, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than sixmoths but which may estend to seven years and also with fine.

(2) Whoever does any act in contravention of any of the provisions of Secs. 5, 6, 7 or 11 in such manner as to indic