Mulla, J.

[1] Mohammad Ali, the opposite party in this case, was prosecuted under Section 19(f) of the Aims Act by the police of Talgaon, district Sitapur.

[2] The charge against Mohammad Ali was that a pistol was recovered from his possession. The trial court felt a doubt whether this pistol could be used as a fire-arm and thereupon asked the. State prosecutor to satisfy him that it could be used as a firearm. The State prosecutor instead of satisfying the trial court on that point put in an application stating that there is no provision in law which empowered the accused to ask for a demonstration.

When the court asked the State prosecutor to satisfy it regarding the condition of the fire-arm recovered, it was not the accused who was making this demand. A court before convicting an accused person is entitled to satisfy itself that the arms recovered from the possession of an accused person fulfils the definition of Arms given under Section 4 of the Arms Act, As the trial court found that the weapon recovered in this case did not fulfill this definition, it acquitted the opposite party.

It is against this order of acquittal that the State has come up in appeal.

[3] Before us