( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 7-4-1984 passed by the Sessions Judge, West Nimar in Criminal Appeal no. 69 of 1983 whereby the petitioners conviction under section 25 of the Arms Act 1959 and the sentence of six months R. I. passed thereunder by the learned trial magistrate in Criminal Case No. 242/81 have been maintained.

( 2. ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the revision are these. On 16-6-1981 Head constable, Subhash Patidar (P. W. 2) along with some constable was on the round of village Pikhar. On reaching the village they found a fire burning near a nala. When they reached the nala two or three persons took to their heels but the petitioner was apprehended. On his search being taken, he was found having a Deshi Tamancha in his dhoti. He had no licence for it and it was seized from him. Implements and materials for distilling liquor were also found there and they too were seized.

( 3. ) AT the conclusion of investigation the petitioner was separately prosecuted for the offence under section 34 of the M. P. Excise Act 1915 (vide Criminal Case No. 241/81 decided on 23-2-l982) and for the offence under section 25 of the Arms Act. (vide Criminal Case No. 242/81 ). The case under the Excise Ad/ended in acquittal of the petitioner.

( 4. ) IN the case under the Arms Act, the petitioner was convicted under section 25 ibid and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The petitioners appeal against the said conviction and sentence stands dismissed and hence this revision.

( 5. ) THE contention of the petitioners learned counsel is that sanction for petitioners prosecution under the Arms Act is not according to the law. He further contends that the article seized from the petitioners possession does not fall within the definition of arms embodied in section 2 (c) of the said Act. Lastly it has been urged that the uncorroborated testimony of the departmental witness, in the circumstances of the case, ought not to have been made the basis for the petitioners conviction more so when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against the petitioner, was not relied upon in the case under the Excise Act.

( 6. ) IN support of his contention that the sanction for prosecution under the Arms act is not proper, the petitioners learned counsel placed reliance! on the decision in satya Narayan Patidars case 1980 JLJ 367.

( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent contends that the Tamancha seized from the possession of the petitioner, on the evidence of the police constable Mehtab Singh (P. W. 8) according to which the Tamancha was in working order, can be held to fall within the definition of arms given in the Act and further that the sanction is proper. It is also contended that there has been no miscarriage of justice and there is no occasion for reappreciating the evidence in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Relying on the Supreme Court decision In Akalu Ahirs case 1973 Cr. LJ. 1404 it is urged that the scope of the revisional jurisdiction which is a discretionary one is limited and this supervisory jurisdiction is not to be exercised as if it is the power of appeal.

( 8. ) IN the instant case, the concurrent conclusion of fact that the petitioner was found in possession of a Tamancha and that it was in working order is based on evidence on record. Evidence of witnesses may be believed in part and the conclusion can, by no stretch of imagination be characterised as perverse. Therefore, the finding that the petitioner was in possession of Deshi Tamancha which falls within the definition of arms as given in the Act, is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the Courts revisional jurisdiction.

( 9. ) THIS brings us as to the question of sanction under section 39 of the Arms Act.

( 10. ) SECTION 39 of the Arms Act provides that no prosecution shall be initiated against any person in respect of any offence under section 3 without the previous sanction of