ORDER M.H. Beg, J. - The Appellants have been convicted Under Sections 399 and 402 IPC aad 25(A) Arms Act and sentenced to seven years' R.I. and five years' RI and two years' RI respectively. 2. The prosecution case was that the Appellants had assembled on the night between 20th and 21st of March 1963 in a grove situated in village Ijaur Police Station Qaimganj in the District of Farrukhabad together with a number of other persons with the object of committing dacoity, and they were arrested by a police party organized by Sri Jaipal Singh SI (P.W. 1). The SI, pes-ted at Police; Station Kaimganj, had received information at about 8.15 P.M. through an informer that the gang of Shri Pal Lodha consisting of 10 or 12 dacoits was to assemble in the grove in question in order to commit dacoity at the house of Ram Ghulam Brahman situated at a distance of 2 to 3 miles from the village where the assembly was to take place. The SI immediately collected a police force and some licence holders and proceeded to the place where the assembly was to take place. The party divided itself into three, and found the dacoits already assembled. From the conversation over heard, it became quite clear that their intention was to commit dacoity. When they were about to start, after the duties had been distributed amongst themselves, very light pistols were filed and the dacoits surrounded. The members of the assembly did not put up any resistance, but, on the other hand, tried to run away. Two of them were caught on the spot and are the Appellants before me. Some of the others Who are alleged to have escaped were also put up for trial but acquitted. 3. The arguments put forward before the trial court assailing the prosecution version have been repeated before me. I, however, find myself in agreement with the answers given by the trial court on each of the arguments advanced. No fresh argument has been advanced before me. It was argued, after reading out from the judgment the contentions put forward before the trial court, that the learned Sessions judge was not justified in not giving the benefit of doubt to the Appellants. No fresh argument has been advanced before me. It was argued, after reading out from the judgment the contentions put forward before the trial court, that the learned Sessions judge was not justified in not giving the benefit of doubt to the Appellants. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge, took into account even matters which could not, properly speaking, be taken into account in attacking the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. A judgment (Ex. Kha 1) containing certain observations against certain persons who appeared as witnesses in another case was relied upon on behalf of the Appellants to assail the veracity of the prosecution witness Sajjad, a gunlicencee. I do not think that it is possible to consider the contents of a judgment relating to other persons belonging to the family of Sajjad Husain in order to show that Sajjad Hussain is a professional witness together with other members of his family who appeared for the police regularly. The trial court was only concerned with the veracity of witnesses before the court. Nothing could be found wrong with the statement of Sajjad Husain except that he had appeared several times to support the prosecution cases. It should be presumed that he spoke the truth on each occasions unless the contrary is shown. The contrary was not, by anything on record proved against Sajjad Hussain. 4. Again, the argument that no body was sent to the house of the intended victim of the dacoity in order to inform him about it has been sufficiently met by the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge that there was no sufficient time for the investigating officer to arrange to send information to the intended victim. No sufficient reason was brought out to discredit the prosecution version. I, therefore, in agreement with the view of the trial court, affirm the convictions of the Appellants. 5. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, I find that there is no previous conviction shown against either of the two Appellants. The Appellants did not try to put up any resistance, and the Appellants were not shown to have taken upon themselves any particularly heinous duty in the contemplated dacoity. 5. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, I find that there is no previous conviction shown against either of the two Appellants. The Appellants did not try to put up any resistance, and the Appellants were not shown to have taken upon themselves any particularly heinous duty in the contemplated dacoity. The usual sentence in such cases is three years R.I. It has been pointed out that the Appellants have already spent nearly 2 1/2 years in jail, so that after the remissions they may have earned, they would have served a period which they have already undergone even if they had been sentenced to three years' R.I.I. therefore, accept the prayer on behalf of the Appellants that their sentences may be reduced to the periods under gone under each of the two Sections 399 and 402 IPC. The Appellants have already served more than two years awarded to them u/s 25(A) Arms Act. 6. In the result, I uphold the convictions of the Appellants but reduce their sentences Under Sections 399 and 402 IPC to the periods already undergone so that the Appellants will be released forthwith unless wanted in some other connection. With the modification indicated above.