JUDGMENT :

K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panposb, acquitting the respondent of the charge u/s 25(1)(a) of the Arm Act, 1959 ('Act' for short).

2. The prosecution case in short is that on 5-12-1979 a country made pistol (M. O. I) was seized from the possession of the respondent by seizure list (Ext. 1). The respondent denied that he Was in possession of M. O. I. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that in the absence of the report of the Ballistic Expert that the country made pistol (M. O. I) was a fire-arm within the definition of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. Accordingly, he acquitted the accused-respondent.

3. The only point for consideration is whether the country made pistol (M. O. I) or the article, which appeared to be a country made pistol and was seized from the possession of the respondent, came within the definition of "fire-arm" u/s 2(1)(e) of the Act. Section 2(1)(e) is quoted below for easy reference:

" 'fire-arm' means arms of any description designed or adapted to discharge a projectile or projectiles of any kind by the action of any ex