JUDGMENT D.N. Roy, J. - These are two connected Cr. As., the one by Parmod Chand and Bhola and the other by Ahmad, who have been convicted u/s 399, IPC and each sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 50/ - or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Bhola has further been found guilty u/s 19(f) of the Arms Act, but no separate sentence has been given to him under that section. 2. The case for the prosecution as supported by six witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution was this. On 4-11-1933, at about 3 p.m. Ahmad Appellant came to the workshop of Hafiz Ahmad P.W.3 near Khusru Bagh in Allahabad and told him that certain persons were designing to commit a dacoity on the Rewa road at a distance of five or six miles from Allahabad. Ahmad asked him to lend him his motorcar for use with a view to take the persons at night to that place, and offered to pay him a sum of Rs. 50/- for his services and further offered to give him a share in the booty. He took Hafiz Ahmad inside Khusru Bagh where he found seven or eight persons seated together armed with a gun and certain revolvers and there the conspiracy was hatched up. Hafiz Ahmad left them at Khusru Bagh, promising to bring his car at the appointed hour. He resumed his work in the workshop and later on thought that he might get himself involved in trouble and might lose his car. At about 5-30 p.m. he went to Circle Inspector Sri S.N. Tandon P.W.2 who lived near his house, and conveyed to him the information that he had with him. The circle Inspector conveyed the information to higher authorities and arranged for the raid. He also informed the Station Officer of police station Chheoki, which lay on the way, to meet him with certain police force. The combined party proceeded on a truck or lorry, reaching a tank popularly known as Mama Bhaine tank on the Rewa Road at about 8-30 p.m. which was the appointed place where Hafiz Ahmad driver P.W.3 was asked to meet them. The combined party proceeded on a truck or lorry, reaching a tank popularly known as Mama Bhaine tank on the Rewa Road at about 8-30 p.m. which was the appointed place where Hafiz Ahmad driver P.W.3 was asked to meet them. The police party had with them, apart from Ram Nath driver P.W.4, three other persons from out of the public, namely, Girja Shankar, Durga Prasad and another Ram Nath, two of whom had been picked up from Chheoki by Station Officer Nand Lal Singh P.W.6. The party waited near the tank till about 9.30 p.m. when a car driven by Hafiz Ahmad P.W.3 arrived and stopped on the road. The night in question was a dark night. Circle Inspector S.N. Tandon at first proceeded alone towards the car and when he satisfied himself that there was only the driver of the car inside the car, he proceeded further and contacted Hafiz Ahmad. Hafiz Ahmad told- him that he had dropped the dacoits at a distance of about 150 paces from therein a jowar field where the dacoits had taken hiding. Circle Inspector S.N. Tandon then arranged a two-pronged attack on the dacoits. The police party was divided into two, one party proceeding towards the field from the east, and the other party proceeding from the west. The dacoits noticing the police party and fearing an imminent attack on them, came out of the field and ran towards the west. The police party fired a shot from a very light pistol producing a flood of light. A chase was given and the three: Appellants were apprehended. Four of five others escaped. In that raiding party there were, besides others, Laxmi Narain Sharma P.W.1, Sub-Inspector of the Allahabad Kotwali, Nand Lal Singh S.O. Chheoki. Gajadhar Singh II. Order Chheoki, besides Circle Inspector S.N. Tandon, Hafiz Ahmad the informer, Ram Nath P.W.4 the driver and certain other members of the police party together with three other public men, namely, Girja Shankar, Durga Prasad and Ram Nath. 3. Upon a search of the person of the accused four twelve-bore, live cartridges, a matchbox, a torch and a knife were recovered from the possession of Bhola, and two crackers or fire-works were recovered from the possession of Ahmad. Nothing incriminating was found on the person of Parmod Chand. Recovery list was prepared at the spot. 3. Upon a search of the person of the accused four twelve-bore, live cartridges, a matchbox, a torch and a knife were recovered from the possession of Bhola, and two crackers or fire-works were recovered from the possession of Ahmad. Nothing incriminating was found on the person of Parmod Chand. Recovery list was prepared at the spot. On inspection of the jowar field, two cycles were found there which were also taken possession of by the police. After necessary investigation the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and it ended in conviction in the manner stated above. 4. The accused persons denied the charges that were levelled against them. Parmod Chand accused contended that he is employed in the I.A.F. at Manauri; that he had gone to see some friend in C.O.D. Chheoki; that when he was returning from Chheoki, he was arrested at Gowghat without rhyme or reason and he was taken to the Kotwali where the reason of his arrest was not disclosed to him even by Circle Inspector S.N. Tandon who was there. Ahmad accused contended that he had been in the service of Hafiz Ahmad P.W.3 as a motor driver; that Hafiz Ahmad owed him a sum of Rs. 300/ - towards salary; that he made demand for that money from him, but Hafiz Ahmad put off the matter for quite a long time; that when he went to him a quarrel took place between the two in which there was an exchange of abuses and that later on (meaning thereby the night in question) Hafiz Ahmad asked him to go by taxi and he took him on a motor car and got him arrested by the police on the way. Bhola accused contended that he was going to Naini at about 9 or 10 in the day and was passing through Gowghat with certain quantity of rice; that he was arrested there, taken to the Kotwali and was made to stay there for the whole day where he was beaten and where a sum of Rs. 60/ - together with the bag of rice had been taken away from him and he was finally sent to Naini Jail at night. 5. 60/ - together with the bag of rice had been taken away from him and he was finally sent to Naini Jail at night. 5. The story set up by the prosecution was unfolded in all its particulars by Hafiz Ahmad P.W.3 the informer and by Sub-Inspector Laxmi Narain of the Kotwali police, Circle Inspector S.N. Tandon, Ram Nath driver, Sub Inspector Nand Lal Singh Station Officer of Chheoki, and Sub-Inspector Gajadhar Singh Second Officer of Chheoki. Hafiz Ahmad stated that on the day in question at about 3 or 3-15 p.m. Ahmad accused approached him at his shop with the information that he might join them in a dacoity by lending his car for their use, and he further told him that the dacoity would be committee on the Rewa Road on the same night at a distance of about five or six miles from Allahabad. He accompanied Ahmad to Khusru Bagh, where he found seven or eight persons seated together who had with them a single barrel gun and certain revolvers. He was told that he would be paid a sum of Rs. 50/ - for his services and he would also be given a share in the booty. Hafiz Ahmad agreed and told them that he would meet them at the appointed hour. Later an he felt that he might get himself involved in trouble and might also ultimately, lose his car. So at about 5-30 p.m. he contacted Circle Inspector S.N. Tandon who was living by the side of his workshop and told him everything that had happened. The Circle Inspector asked him to take the dacoits to the place as arranged by them and assure them that he would meet them there, known as Mama-bhaine Tank where there was a temple. Ahmad accused again came to Hafiz Ahmad at his workshop at about 7-45 or 8 p.m. Hafiz Ahmad then started with his car along with Ahmad. The car came up to the Jumna bridge and after crossing the Jumna he found four five persons waiting there. They were all picked up in the car. Ahmad accused again came to Hafiz Ahmad at his workshop at about 7-45 or 8 p.m. Hafiz Ahmad then started with his car along with Ahmad. The car came up to the Jumna bridge and after crossing the Jumna he found four five persons waiting there. They were all picked up in the car. The car proceeded onwards When the party reached near the Agricultural Institute at Naini, the party met two or three other persons and they were also picked up by Ahmad in the can After proceeding a certain distance, they met two persons on cycles near the road and they stopped the car. There was some conversation between those two persons and the persons in the car and it was suggested that the car should stop near the temple at the tank. The car, proceeded onwards Sand finally it stopped, near the jowar field. Those who were, in the car got into the jowar field at a distance of about one furlong from the temple. Hafiz Ahmad proceeded onwards' with the car., and met Circle Inspector S.N. Tandon near the temple and conveyed the information to him. The police force headed by the Circle Inspector made a raid and approached the Jowar field from two directions. One shot from a very light pistol was fired by the police party. The dacoits, who were in hiding in that jowar field, started running. Out of them three, namely, the Appellants were arrested at the spot, and the others in spite of a chase escaped into the adjoining fields. Upon a search of the person of the accused certain live cartridges were recovered from Bhola Appellant and two crackers were recovered from Ahmad. The other witnesses mentioned above supported this story in all necessary particulars. Out of six witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution five belonged to the police force and the sixth, namely, Ram Nath, P.W.4, is an independent person. Ram Nath is the driver of a lorry or bus belonging to Shiam Sunder Lal. He has been in the service of Shiam Sunder Lal. His bus was picked up from Allahabad junction station by the police party in the evening, in question and it was on his bus that the police party proceeded to make the raid. Ram Nath is the driver of a lorry or bus belonging to Shiam Sunder Lal. He has been in the service of Shiam Sunder Lal. His bus was picked up from Allahabad junction station by the police party in the evening, in question and it was on his bus that the police party proceeded to make the raid. I have been taken through the evidence of Ram Nath, P.W.4, and I have not been able to come across anything in his evidence which might cast any doubt about his veracity. Hafiz Ahmad, P.W.3, may; be termed an accomplice. u/s 133 of the Indian Evidence Act it is provided that an accomplice shall be a competent person against an accused person and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. In the present case the conviction is not however based upon the uncorroborated testimony of such an accomplice.! The evidence of Hafiz Ahmed has, therefore, to be judged with great care and -caution; but when that evidence finds support not only from four of the police witnesses but also from Ram Nath, P.W.4, who is an independent witness, it can by no stretch of reasoning be said that the conviction is illegal. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has laid great stress upon the fact that the three other independent witnesses who were drawn from the public and who were taken by the police party to the scene of occurrence were not produced by the prosecution in spite of having been summoned in the court of sessions, and it has been argued, relying upon the decision of the (S.C.) in Habeeb Mohammad Vs. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 51 , that it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to examine those three material witnesses, particularly when no allegation had been made that if produced they would not speak the truth. It has been contended that not only does an adverse inference arise against the prosecution case from the non-production of those witnesses in view of illustration (g) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act but the circumstance of their being withheld from the court casts a serious reflection on the fairness of the trial. In the (S.C.) case the trial judge refused, to summon a witness by name Biabani. In the (S.C.) case the trial judge refused, to summon a witness by name Biabani. Having regard to the circumstances of that case it was held by the (S.C.) that the terms in which the order of the Special Judge was couched exhibited lack of judicial balance in a matter which required serious consideration, and, that the circumstances justified the conclusion that Biabani had been withheld by the prosecution for oblique motives. The (S.C.) considered two earlier decisions of their Lordships of the P.C., the one in Stephen Seneviratne v. The King AIR 1936 P.C. 289 and the other in Add Muhammad v. A.G. of Palestine AIR 1945 P.C. 42 and observed that the reliance that was placed on the decision of their Lordships in 1945 P.C. 42 was misplaced; that the point that was considered in that case was somewhat different from the point raised in the case before the (S.C.) that it was difficult to hold in the case before the (S.C.) that there was no oblique motive of the prosecution for not producing Biabani and that in the opinion of the (S.C.) the question whether it is the duty of the prosecution to produce material witnesses is governed by what is laid down by the P.C. in Stephen Seneviratne v. The King AIR 1936 P.C. 289 . In the 1936 case the Privy Council observed that it is a wrong idea that the prosecution must call witnesses irrespective of considerations of number and reliability or that it should discharge the functions both of prosecution and defence; that if it does so, confusion is very apt to result, more especially so when the prosecution calls witnesses and proceeds automatically to discredit them by cross-examination; and that witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based must of course be called by the prosecution, whether in the result the effect of their testimony is for or against the case for the prosecution. 7. In the present case there is nothing on the record to suggest why the three other witnesses who were drawn from the public to witness the raid were not produced. Learned Counsel for the State contends that these witnesses were not produced because the rest of the evidence that was produced in the case was sufficient for the prosecution to unfold the story that was advanced by it. Learned Counsel for the State contends that these witnesses were not produced because the rest of the evidence that was produced in the case was sufficient for the prosecution to unfold the story that was advanced by it. In this connection reference may be made to Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act which lays down that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. After having considered the evidence and all the circumstances in the present case I do not think that there is anything to suggest that the prosecution had been actuated by any oblique motive in withholding the three witnesses stated above. Witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution was based were of course produced and the non-production of the three witnesses in the special circumstances of the case cannot cast any reflection on the fairness of the trial 8. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence to support the story that the three accused were arrested from different places and under different circumstances. u/s 399 of the IPC one of the essential things that the prosecution must show is that there were persons who had conceived the design of committing dacoity. Once the existence of such a conspiracy has been established then any step taken with the intention and for the purpose of forwarding that design may justify the court in holding that there has been preparation within the meaning of that section. The making of preparation should be shown to the satisfaction of the court by some act such as the collection of men, arms, provisions, etc. which coupled with other circumstances plainly manifest the intention to commit dacoity. 9. Upon a consideration of the entire evidence and the circumstances of the case it appears to me quite clear that an offence u/s 399 of the IPC was made out beyond any shadow of doubt against all the three Appellants and an offence u/s 19(f) of the Arms Act was also made out against Bhola Appellant. Parmod Chand's contention that he was employed by the IAF at Manauri and that he had gone on that day to meet some friend in the C.O.D., Chheoki, lacked the support of any evidence. The contention of the other two Appellants was also not supported by any evidence. Parmod Chand's contention that he was employed by the IAF at Manauri and that he had gone on that day to meet some friend in the C.O.D., Chheoki, lacked the support of any evidence. The contention of the other two Appellants was also not supported by any evidence. Under the circumstances the conviction and sentence of the Appellants must be upheld. The appeals are dismissed. The Appellants who may be on bail must surrender to their bail to serve out their sentences.