ORDER T. Ramabhadran, J. - Eight persons, including the six applicants, were tried in the court of the II Assistant Sessions Judge, Aligarh, of offences punishable under Sctions 399 and 40i IPG, there being a further charge u/s 19(f) of the Arms Act a (gainst three of them. The trial judge came to the conclusion that all the eight accused persons were guilty of the offences with which they had been charged. They were accordingly convicted. In respect of the offences under Sections 309 and 402 IPC, a composite sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment each was inflicted upon them. Tirka and Raghubir applicants as well as one Dharma alias Dharam Singh, who has not come up in revision, were further sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment each u/s 19 (f) of the Arms Act, the two sentences in their case running concurrently. An appeal was taken by the eight convicted persons,, which, however w"s dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh. Hence this revision, which has been filed by Tirkha, Ramji, Durjan, Budha, Raghubir and Keerat Dharam alias Dharam Singh and Jagdish alias Jaggi have not come up in revision. 2. The prosecution case was that on 12.8.1962 at about 7.55 P.M., R.D. Tewari Station Officer, Kotwali, Aligarh, received information that an armed gang of dacoits would assemble in front of the III' class waiting room at Aligarh Railway Junction Station with a view to commit decoity at the house of one Udai Ram Bohra in village Kuarsi, P.S. Civil Lines. A raiding party was accordingly organised, consisting of police officers and some non official witnesses. The raiding party surrounded the gang and managed to arrest eight of them, namely, Tirkha, Ramji Lal, Durjan, Budha, Dharma alias Dharam Singh, Raghubir, Keerat and Jagdish alias Jaggi i.e. the eight accused while the nineth man managed to effect his escape. On being searched, fire arms were recovered from the possession of Tirkha and Raghubir applicants as well as Dharma alias Dharam Singh, who has not come up in revision. The other accused persons were found in possession of lathis, torches, razor blades etc. The arrested persons were escorted to the Kotwali, along with the recovered articles, where a First Information Report was lodged. Another man, was arrested on the route to village Kuarsi where the police party subsequently proceeded. Police investigation followed. The other accused persons were found in possession of lathis, torches, razor blades etc. The arrested persons were escorted to the Kotwali, along with the recovered articles, where a First Information Report was lodged. Another man, was arrested on the route to village Kuarsi where the police party subsequently proceeded. Police investigation followed. The eight accused persons were in due course committed to the court of sessions charged with offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, with a further charge u/s 19(f) of the Arms Act against three of them. At the trial, the accused denied the prosecution case in toto, i.e. both their arrest from the neighbourhood of the III class waiting room of the Aligarh Railway Station as well as the alleged recoveries. The trial Judge, however, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated earlier. The appeal to the court of sessions, as already indicated, was successful. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicants urged vehemently before me that the courts below have erred in finding the accused guilty of offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. This contention was that merely because eight persons were found together near the III class waiting room and fire arms were re covered from three of them (assuming the prosecution case in this regard to be true,, it did not necessarily follow that those persons had assembled there for the purpose of committing dacoity. Mr. Sharafat Afi, learned Counsel for the applicants further pointed out that village Kuarsi where, according to the prosecution, dacoity was to be committed at the house of one Udai Ram, was far off from the railway station. The survey map of Aligarh district shows that the intervening distance is about three miles. In case these eight persons intended to commit dacoity at Kuarsi, as alleged by the prosecution, then it was argued in the ordinary course, they would, have assembled not in a frequented place, like the railway station but in some secluded grove or other lonely place near Kuarsi. The applicants are residents of Bhakrol, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kotwali, Aligarh. The applicants are residents of Bhakrol, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kotwali, Aligarh. Why should these persons rim the risk of being seen or arrested, by assembling in a frequented place, like the railway station, when they could have easily assembled at some secluded spot near the village where the chances of their being observed, were limited. In coming to the conclusion that the accused had assembled near the III class, waiting room for the purpose of committing dacoity after having made preparations therefor, the courts below appear to have gone by the testimony of S.I.. Mahtab Singh (PW 1 and Ram Charan (PW 2). According to the former he had over heard the accused whispering to each other, that they were going to commit dacoity at Kuarsi in the house of Udai Ram and were waiting for one Chunni. According to the latter, they were giving out that it was getting late, they should go to Kuarsi and return and their associate would meet them at the spot. Apart from the above allegations there is no evidence on the record to show that the object of the accused persons in collecting near the III class waiting room was to commit dacoity at Kuarsi. I find force accordingly in the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that in case their object was really to commit dacoity at Kuarsi, then it was hardly likely that instead of assembling at some secluded place near Kuarsi they would have taken it into their heads to assemble at a frequented place like the III class waiting Eoom at the Aligarh railway station, with firearms and other incriminating articles in their possession and hereby run the risk of being observed and arrested. 4. In this connection Sri Sharafat Ali cited the case State v. Ghissu Khan (1) reported in 1956 AWR 212 . There the facts were that five of the accused persons were found seated in a compartment of a railway train at Kachla Ghat railway station. They were taken down. Firearms were recovered from the possession of two of them and a spear head from a third. Nothing incriminating, however, was found with the other accused. The arrested persons were sent to the police station, about one furlong away from the railway station. Another man Was found sitting near a grove in suspicious circumstances. They were taken down. Firearms were recovered from the possession of two of them and a spear head from a third. Nothing incriminating, however, was found with the other accused. The arrested persons were sent to the police station, about one furlong away from the railway station. Another man Was found sitting near a grove in suspicious circumstances. He made an attempt to escape but was chased and arrested, from his possession an unlicensed pistol and two live cartridges were recovered. On these premises, these six persons were sent up charged with offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPG, there being a further charge u/s 19/20 (f) of the Arms Act against three of them. The Additional Sessions Judge, who conducted the trial, acquitted all the accused of the charges under Sections 399 and 402 IPG, but convicted three of them u/s 19/20 (f) of the Arms Act. Both the parties came up in appeal to this Court--the three accused who had been convicted under Sections 19/20 (f) of the Arms Act as well as the State, i. e. the three convicted persons against their conviction under Sections 19/20 (f) of the Arms Act and the State against the order of acquittal u/s 399 and 402 IPC. In dismissing both the appeals, the Division Bench observed that 'the mere fact that a number of persons were found collected together some of whom were in possession of firearms does not, by itself lead to the inference that they had collected there having made preparations to commit dacoity, and the mere arrest of a number of persons together does not necessarily lead to the inference that they had collected for committing dacoity.' 5. I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants, that in case the applicants were out to commit dacoity in village Kuarsi and for that purpose had taken it into their heads to arm themselves and assemble near the III class waiting room, they would not have been so foolish-as to whisper to each other within the hearing of others that they were going to commit dacoity at Kuarsi, that they were waiting for another, that it was getting late and their associate Would meet them there etc. The testimony to that effect afforded by S.I. Mahtab Singh (P.W. 1) and Ram Qharan (P.W. 2) is hardly convincing. The testimony to that effect afforded by S.I. Mahtab Singh (P.W. 1) and Ram Qharan (P.W. 2) is hardly convincing. Once their testimony is eliminated, there is no direct evidence to show that the accused had collected near the III class waiting room for the purpose of committing dacoity in village Kuarsi, or after having made preparation therefore. 6. The circumstantial evidence also does not necessarily warrant such an inference. Even if the accused were inclined to commit some offence, it could not definitely be said that the offence intended to be committed was a dacoity and no other offence. There might be room for suspecting that the accused intended to commit dacoity, but mere suspicion would not be sufficient to warrant their conviction under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. Consequently, the conviction of the applicants under Sections 399 and 402 IPC cannot be sustained. 7. As regards the conviction of Tirkha and Raghubir applicants of an offence u/s 19(f) of the Arms Act, the evidence on the record establishes the recovery of unlicensed firearms from their possession. The learned Counsel for these two applicants has not been able to show why the testimony in this regard should be disbelieved. Consequently, the conviction of Tirkha and Raghubir applicants u/s 19(f) of the Arms Act has to be maintained. 8. The result is that the revision is allowed in part. The conviction of the -six applicants, Tirkha, Ramji, Durjan, Budha, Raghubir and Keerat of offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC is set aside, along with the cumulative sentence, inflicted upon them thereunder by the trial court. They were granted bail by this Court pending disposal of this revision, but learned Counsel is not sure whether they were able to furnish the necessary bail and were, accordingly released. Consequently, my order is that in case the applicants Ramji, Durjan, Budha and Keerat are still in" jail, they should be released forthwith from jail unless wanted in some, other case. But, if on the other hand, they have already been released on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged. 9. The conviction of Thirkha and Raghubir applicants u/s 19(f) of the Arms Act is maintained, along with, the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment inflicted upon each of them thereunder, which, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be considered excessive. 9. The conviction of Thirkha and Raghubir applicants u/s 19(f) of the Arms Act is maintained, along with, the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment inflicted upon each of them thereunder, which, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be considered excessive. These two applicants, had also been granted ball by this Court during the pendency of the revision. Learned Counsel is, however, unable to state if they actually furnished bail and were released. My order, therefore, is that in case these two applicants were not released on bail and have already under gone one year's R I. each, then they would be released from custody, unless framed in some other case (their conviction under Sections 399 and 402 IPC having been set aside above). If, on the they had, they were actually released on bail and have not yet under gone one year R.I. each they should surrender and undergo the rest of that sentence u/s 19(f) of the Arms Act. 10. Jagdish alias Jaggi, who was convicted under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, has not come up in revision. Since the case against him rests on the same footing as the case against the remaining accused, in the exercise of my revisional jurisdiction I set aside his conviction under Sections 399 and 402 IPG and direct that he should be released from jail, unless wanted in some other case. 11. Similarly, Dharma alias Dharam Singh, who was convicted under Sections 99 and 402 IPC as well as u/s 19 (f) of the Arms Act, has not come up in revision, suomotu. In the exercise of my revisional jurisdiction, for reasons stated above, I set aside his conviction under Sections 399 and 402 IPC along with the sentence inflicted upon him there under by the trial court. His conviction u/s 19(f) of the Arms Act is, however, maintained, along with the sentence inflicted upon him thereunder. In other words, in case Dharma alias Dharatn Sihgh has already under gone one year's rigorous imprisonment, he should be released from jail at once unless wanted in some other case.