( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Chhotey Lal who has been convicted under Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment.

( 2 ) CHHOTEY Lal stood his trial before the learned Sessions Judge of Pilibhit along with three other persons, Bam Bharosey Lal, Rajendra Kumar and Avadh Behari Lal for offences punishable under Sections 304/34 and Section 394, I. P. C. The facts on which the aforementioned charges were made against the four accused who stood a joint trial, before the Sessions Judge of Pilibhit were that they killed one Lala Nanhey Mal on 3-7-1950, when he was going to the railway station in the small hours of the morning to catch a train for Bareilly. Lala Nanhey Mal had on his person a large sum of money and with him there was another man named Ramesh Chandra who also carried a part of the money of Lala Nanhey Mal. These two people were surprised by some persons, according to the prosecution by the four accused, and thereafter Nanhey Mal was stabbed and Ramesh Chandra was robbed. The prosecution tried to prove the charges against all the accused, taut they were unable to satisfy the trial Judge with regard to any of the charges save the one under Section 19 (f) of the arms Act against the appellant before me. As a consequence of the findings arrived at by the trial Judge all the four accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34 and Section 394, I. P. C. The learned Judge, however, has as already mentioned, convicted the appellant under section 19 (f) of the Arms Act because in his view the evidence in the case established the fact that the appellant possessed a country made pistol.

( 3 ) AFTER the outrage on Nanhey Mal the police got busy tracing the culprits and it appears that chhotey Lal, the appellant, was one of the suspects in the crime. Chhotey Lal was taken into police custody, though not actually arrested, and he was subjected to an examination by the investigating officer. It appears that the investigating officer expected Chhotey Lal to make some startling revelations and he, therefore, had a Tahsildar. Magistrate called to hear these. The accused made a statement before the Tahsildar Magistrate, namely, Sri Kailash Chandra and the police officer to the effect that he had dropped a pistol in a ditch and that he was going to take the party to the ditch so that the pistol may be discovered therefrom. The pistol was as a consequence of the statement actually discovered before the Tahsildar Magistrate and a few other witnesses as also in the presence of the investigating Officer in whose custody the accused apparently was at that time.

( 4 ) AT the trial witnesses deposed to the statement having been made by the accused and to the discovery having been made as a direct consequence of that statement.

( 5 ) IT was argued by Sri Roop Kishore Srivastava that the statement of the accused that he threw the pistol into the ditch could not be proved under. Section 27 of the Evidence Act for, according to learned Counsel, only the statement that the pistol was in the ditch could be proved. I am unable to accept this contention because of the view expressed by a Bench of this Court in emperor v. Chokhey AIR 1937 All 497 (A ). That was a case in which the facts were almost similar to the facts of the present case and it was there held that the whole of the statement of an accused which occasions the discovery can be proved. In the reported case the statement of the accused that was permitted to be proved was this : "i have buried a gun at such and such a place. " In the present case the statement of the accused is similar, namely, that he had thrown a pistol in such and such a ditch. If the statement of the accused in the former case could have been proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act then I do not see why the statement of the accused in the present case cannot be so proved. A similar view was taken by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of p