JUDGMENT M.N. Shukla, J. - This is an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against an order of the learned Civil & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, dated 31-3-1965 acquitting all the respondents of the charges under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and respondents Khubiram, Dha ram Singh, Ragghu, Najju and Jamil of the charge under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 4-9-1964 information was received by the Station Officer, Anupshahr, district Bulandshahr, that a gang of dacoits would assemble in the grove of Chhidda Jat in Baliya Nagla. He, therefore. with police force and public witnesses, went to the said grove. There is a jhopri in the grove wherein the respondents are alleged to have assembled along with two other persons. The Station Officer S, P, Rathi (P. W. 8) organised a raid. Constables Mohan Lal, Balak Ram and Ram Kumar were sent to village Pagona as a matter of prosecution as the dacoity was apprehended to be committed at the house of the one Udai Singh Jat in that village. One constable Satya Pal was sent in plain dress to Beliya Nagla to collect witnesses who were to come to the grove of Onkar Prasad. Then this police party consisting of Ranvir Singh S. I. (P. W. 1). S. P. Rathi S. 0. (P. W. 8) , two head constables, nine constables and one Prithvi Singh public man arrived at the grove of Onkar Prasad. An entry in the general diary was made. At about 8 pm. constable Satya Pal arrived in the grove with witnesses Radhey Ram and Chhakkan, residents of village Rajor, and Lila Singh, Lal Singh, Rajbir Singh, Harish Chandra and Kalyan, residents of village Beliya Nagla. The weapons possessed by the members of the police party were entered in the general diary. Among the public man, except Prithvi Singh and Kalyan, others had their own licensed guns. Three parties were formed. Party No. 1 was handed by S .P. Rathi, Station Officer, and consisted of one head constable, three constables and three public men. The second party was led by Ranvir Singh S. I. and consisted of three constables and three public man. The third party was led by head constable Manga Ram and consisted of three constables and two public men. The second party was led by Ranvir Singh S. I. and consisted of three constables and three public man. The third party was led by head constable Manga Ram and consisted of three constables and two public men. Party No. 1 was posted to the east of the aforesaid jhopri, party No. 2 to the north and party No. 3 to the west thereof. There was a door in the jhopri towards the south, which side was left vacant. All the three parties were directed to rush to arrest the accused persons when V. L. P. was fired. Further, they were asked not to talk, not to smoke and not to light the torch. With these instructions the three parties started from the grove of Onkar Prasad and reached the grove of Chhidda Jat. On reaching the corner of Chidda Jat's grove the member of the party heard some humming and also saw the light of bidi and cigarette. Being convinced that the miscreants were inside the jhopri, the parties took their respective positions. It was about 9 p.m. It is alleged that two of the accused persons came out of the jhopri and one of them said that they need not wait for other people, that those already assembled were sufficient, that they were armed with four or five weapons and that the house of Udai Singh Jat lay outside the village. There-after all the accused persons came out of the jhopri. The Station Officer ordered for firing of V. L. P. and the three parties ran towards the miscreants who were beaten and captured. The eight persons captured on the spot were the respondents who stood their trial. Two of the miscreants, however, ran away. 3. Search was made and the following articles were recovered from the accused persons: Khubiram One muzzle loading gun Ex. 1,8 caps Ex. II, three tolas gun powder Ex. II-e, shots one Chattak Ex. III, torch Ex. IV, Rs. 2.50 Ex. XXII, one Biri bundle Ex. XXIII, one match box Ex. XXIV, and one dhoti. Najju One jhola Ex. V. one pistol, Ex. VI, one pistol Ex. VI, 3 cartridges Ex. VII, one dhoti Addha. Dharam Singh One jhola Ex. VIII, pistol Ex. IX, 4 cartridges, Ex. X, torch Ex. XI, and one towel. Ragghu One jhola Ex. XII, pistol Ex. XIII, 3 cartridges Ex. XIV, Rs. 21- Ex. XXIV, and one dhoti. Najju One jhola Ex. V. one pistol, Ex. VI, one pistol Ex. VI, 3 cartridges Ex. VII, one dhoti Addha. Dharam Singh One jhola Ex. VIII, pistol Ex. IX, 4 cartridges, Ex. X, torch Ex. XI, and one towel. Ragghu One jhola Ex. XII, pistol Ex. XIII, 3 cartridges Ex. XIV, Rs. 21- Ex. XXV and one Addha Dhoti. Jamil One jhola Ex. XV, pistol XVI, 2 cartridges Ex. XVII, Biri bundle Ex. XXV, match box Ex. XXVII, and one Angocha. Yadram Lathi Ex. VIII, Rs. 2.20 Ex. XXIX, Addha Dhoti. Natram Lathi Ex. XIX, torch Ex. XX, one Tahmad. Jamma Biri bundle Ex. XXVIII, one Addha Dhoti. All the articles were sealed and recovery memos prepared. Then the police party returned to the police station at l-20 ,a.m. On 5-9-1964 and a first information report was lodged by S. P. Rathi, Station Officer (P. W. 8) . 4. The accused pleaded not guilty. Khubiram, Dharam Singh, Yadram, Ragghu, Najju and Natram stated that they were arrested from Debai railway station known also as Kaser railway station. Jamma accused stated that he was purchasing sweats from a halwai shop in Anupshahr and he was arrested there. Jamil accused stated that he was arrested from his village Bagthari. 5. The prosecution examined Sub Inspector Ranvir Singh (P. W. 1) , Manga Ram (P. W. 2) , Radhey Ram (P. W. 3) , Kalyan Singh (P. W. 4) , Pratap Singh (P. W. 5) . Lila Singh (P. W. 6) . Iftikhar Husain (P. W. 7) and S. P. Rathi, Station Officer, (P. W. 8) . 6. The learned Sessions Judge, after appraising the prosecution evidence, believed the same and recorded a finding that the arrest of the accused persons was made as alleged by the prosecution, that they were found in possession of the weapons which were dangerous, that they were fully armed and had enough ammunition with them. However, relying on a single Judge decision of this Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 1217 and 1372, 251 of 1963. Balwant v. State, 1965 AWR (HC) 519 he held that as other accused persons, apart from two namely Yadram and Ragghu, had not been put up for test identification they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. However, relying on a single Judge decision of this Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 1217 and 1372, 251 of 1963. Balwant v. State, 1965 AWR (HC) 519 he held that as other accused persons, apart from two namely Yadram and Ragghu, had not been put up for test identification they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned Sessions Judge referred to the mistakes committed in the identification parade which was held in respect of the accused persons, namely Yadram and Ragghu, and observed that if other accued persons too had been put up for identification, similar mistakes might have been committed. 7. It may be mentioned that in this case identification was claimed by only two accused persons namely Yadram and Ragghu. Both these accused were put up for identification in an identification parade held on 11-12-1964, which was conducted by Sri H. D. Pandey, S. D. M. Anupshahr (P. W. 9) . Nineteen persons went for identification of these two accused persons. Yadram was identified in jail by only two persons namely constable Pratap Singh and Kalyan Singh a public man. In the sessions court, however, only Pratap Singh correctly identified Yadram while Kalyan Singh picked up Dharam Singh when pointing out Yadram. S. I. Ranvir Singh and Station Officer S. P. Rathi also committed mistakes in this respect. Mistakes were further committed by head constable Fatehyab Khan and constables Jagpal Singh, Om Prakash, Hasnain Ali, Sajid Ali, Mahendra Singh, Baljit Singh, Satya Pal Singh and Rajbir Singh, Lal Singh and Lila Singh public men. The result was that out of 19 witnesses, mistakes were committed by 13 while two correctly identified by one witness. 8. The result in the case of Ragghu accused was similar. In jail he was correctly identified by S. I. Ranvir Singh, constable Sajid Ali, Station Officer S. P. Rathi, Radhey Ram, Kalyan Singh and Lila Singh while in sessions court he was correctly identified by S. I. Ranvir Singh, Kalyan Singh, Lila Singh and Station Officer S. P. Rathi but Radhey Ram failed to identify him. Mistakes were committed in his group by head constable Fatehyab Khan, constable Harbans Singh, constable Om Prakash, constable Hasnain Ali, constable Pratap Singh, constable Mahendra Singh, constable Satya Pal and Rajbir Singh i.e. by eight persons. 9. Mistakes were committed in his group by head constable Fatehyab Khan, constable Harbans Singh, constable Om Prakash, constable Hasnain Ali, constable Pratap Singh, constable Mahendra Singh, constable Satya Pal and Rajbir Singh i.e. by eight persons. 9. As regards the eye-witnesses S. I. Ranvir Singh (P. W. 1) , who was a member of the second police party, supported the entire prosecution story. He stated that on receiving information that a gang of dacoits was to assemble in the grove of Chhidda Jat in Beliya Nagla, the Station Officer, Anupshahr police station, arranged a raid' consisting of three groups. These groups were composed of police as well as non-official witnesses and were split into three parties posted in three respective position. The accused persons had assembled in the jhopri in the said grove along with two other persons and when two persons of the accused party came out of the jhopri and remarked that time was ripe for them to go, the other accused persons came out of the jhopri. Thereafter the police force surrounded and caught them on the spot. The witness stated that he interrogated the arrested miscreants and then they gave out their names and that the accused present in the dock were the same as had been arrested on the spot. The witness further stated that two persons of the gang escaped. A search was taken of the accused persons and then the articles already mentioned were recovered. The other accused persons merely carried lathis with them and hence no charge under the Arms Act was made against them. Thereafter all the arrested persons were taken baparda to the police station where the Station Officer S. P. Rathi lodged a report. 10. Manga Ram (P. W. 2) another constable who belonged to the second police party also corroborated Ranvir Singh (P. W. 1) . He stated that the persons apprehended on the spot were the same who were present in court and that they had given out their names on being interrogated by the police on the spot. He stated that on a search being made, the articles already mentioned were recovered from the arrested persons, that thereafter the accused persons were taken with their faces covered to the police station and the articles recovered were also taken to the police station. He stated that on a search being made, the articles already mentioned were recovered from the arrested persons, that thereafter the accused persons were taken with their faces covered to the police station and the articles recovered were also taken to the police station. The witness categorically denied the suggestion made by the defence that the accused persons had been arrested from a different place. 11. Radhey Ram (P. W. 3) is a public man who was included in the first police party. He fully corroborated the statements of the other prosecution witnesses :and stated that the accused persons present in court were the same who had been ;apprehended on the spot. 12. Kalyan (P. W. 4) another public wit-ness was included in the second police party. He supported the prosecution case on all points. 13. Pratap Singh (P. W. 5) a constable was in the first police party. He also gave out the entire story of the arrest of the accused persons on the spot, the recovery of the various articles from them and then the fact of their being taken baparda to the police station. 15. Lila Singh (P. W. 6) a public witness formed part of the third police party and he also supported the prosecution story. 16. Iftekar Husain (P. W. 7) is a cons-table clerk. He deposed that at 6 p.m. on 4-9-1964 he made an entry in the general diary about the information furnished by the approver and the despatch of the police force. He stated that S. P. Rathi (P. W. 8) had lodged the first information report, that he had brought with him all accused persons baparda along with the recovered articles to the police station and that he himself had written the report. He added that the original of the Chik register had been somehow misplaced and lost and that he was filing the carbon copy of the same Exhibit Ka 11. He proved his signature on the same and stated that it was written in his hand. He categorically denied the defence suggestion put to him that all the entries in the police record in the present case had been made simultaneously and were fake. 17. He proved his signature on the same and stated that it was written in his hand. He categorically denied the defence suggestion put to him that all the entries in the police record in the present case had been made simultaneously and were fake. 17. S. P. Rathi (P. W. 8) , Station Officer, Police Station Anupshahr, district Bulandshahr, has narrated the prosecution case and deposed that all the eight accused persons were arrested on the spot and they had discolsed their names and address on being interrogated by him, that the accused were taken to the police station with convered faces and that he had lodged the first information report at 1.30 a.m. The witness also proved the sanction which had been obtained for prosecuting five of the accused persons under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents has assailed the prosecution case on some general grounds. It was urged that the recovery of fire-arms and cartridges, lathis, match box etc. by itself was not sufficient indication of preparation being made or assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity. In our opinion, the fact that so many persons had assembled and recoveries were made of fire-arms and cartridges, lathis, torches, match box etc. from their person coupled with the remarks made by two of the accused persons who came out of the jhopri leaves no room for doubt that these persons had assembled in the grove of Chhidda Jat for making preparation for committing dacoity in the house of Udai Singh Jat in village Pagona. It is clear from the site plan that the first and second police parties were posted at a distance of only 15 paces from the place where the two accused persons had come out of the jhopri and had remarked that it was time for them to proceed and not wait any longer as the house of Udai Singh Jat was situated outside the Abadi. It is quite probable that the police party would have heard these remarks of the two accused persons and that left no room for doubt as to the motive of the assembly. 19. The investigation made in the case has also been assailed on two grounds. It is quite probable that the police party would have heard these remarks of the two accused persons and that left no room for doubt as to the motive of the assembly. 19. The investigation made in the case has also been assailed on two grounds. Firstly, it was contended that S. P. Rathi (P. W. 8) , Station Officer, who had him-self organised the raid should not have investigated the case but should have handed over the investigation to some subordinate officer such as S. I. Another corollary of the same argument was that in the present case there was no statement of the principal witness S. P. Rathi under Section 161. Cr. P. C. and therefore, the investigation was vitiated and the accused had suffered prejudice. There is no substance in this contention. It is true that the usual summary and unsigned statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. of the Station Officer S. P. Rathi was absent in the instant case. That, however, did not cause any prejudice to the accused, because in its place a statement in a more elaborate form and signed by the Station Officer in the shape of the first information report lodged by him was there. Therefore, no prejudice at all could be caused to the accused and hence the contention that the technical omission of a statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. vitiated the investigation is untenable. Secondly, the investigation was criticised on the ground that the original of the first information report lodged by the Station Officer was missing. No importance can be attached to this criticism because, as we have already seen, Iftekar Husain (P. W. 7) the clerk constable who wrote the report, proved the copy and loss of the original. The copy was admissible in evidence and was duly proved by the prosecution. 20. It was next argued that three of the accused persons were only armed with lathis which is an ordinary weapon and they could not be said to have joined the other accused persons in assembling in the grove after making preparation for the purpose of committing dacoity. There is no force in this argument. 20. It was next argued that three of the accused persons were only armed with lathis which is an ordinary weapon and they could not be said to have joined the other accused persons in assembling in the grove after making preparation for the purpose of committing dacoity. There is no force in this argument. All the accused persons had assembled in the jhopri in the grove of Chidda Jat with the common purpose and two of them came out of the jhopri and had remarked to the effect that all of them should proceed to their target i. e. the house of Udai Singh Jat. In these circumstances the mere fact that some accused persons were carrying lathis only does not negative an intention on their part to commit dacoity after having made preparation for the same and having assembled in the grove with that intention. Their cases, therefore, are not distinguishable so far as the liability is concerned. 21. Having scrutinised the entire evidence in the case we do not find any flaw in the prosecution case so as to reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. They have given a consistent and cogent account of the entire incident and have proved the factum of the arrest of the accused persons on the spot. Therefore, we affirm the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the arrest of the accused persons was not on the spot, that they were found in possession of dangerous weapons, that they were fully armed and had enough ammunition with them and that they had met for the purpose of the committing dacoity in the' house of Udai Singh Jat of village Beliya, Nagla. 22. Reliance was placed on the fact that in the indentification parade held in respect of two accused persons, namely Yadram and Ragghu, mistakes were committed and the two accused persons could be identified in court by only one witness each. As regards the other accused per sons, though they had not claimed identification, it was urged that the accused had a right of identification and that identification parade should have been held in respect of the other accused persons also. Reliance was placed in support of this argument on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the Case of Balwant Singh v. State. Reliance was placed in support of this argument on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the Case of Balwant Singh v. State. In that case the appellants were apprehended on the spot and the learned single Judge held that the fact that no identification parade was held in respect of them amounted to a fatal weakness in the prosecution case. That decision has, however, been over ruled by a subsequent division Bench case of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Neel Kanth, A.I.R. 1967 Alld. 447 (LB). R. N. Sharma, J, observed: "If, on the other hand an alleged culprit has been arrested at the spot, his culpability will depend on the veracity of witnesses who would say that he had committed the offence. It is not necessary to put up such arrested persons for identification fication at an identification parade ......" 23. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the case of K. Lajja Ram v. State, A.I.R. 1955 Alld, 671 (DB). That was not a case of arrest of the accused persons on the spot. The facts of that case were that a murder had been committed on 8-3-1954 and the accused appellant was arrested on 30-4-1954 and in those circumstances it was observed that on a request to be made by the accused for identification, identification should be held and in case it was refused, the prosecution exposed itself to the criticism that if identifications were held, the witnesses would not have been able to stand the test. That was, however, not the case of the accused persons being apprehended on the spot and moreover even that case is not an authority for the preposition that the accused have a right to claim identification. 24. Thus we are convinced that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the fact that in the identification parade in respect of two accused persons, namely Yadram and Raghu, mistakes were committed by the witnesses or that the accused could not be identified by more than one witness, does not in any manner detract from the basic finding recorded by us that the evidence fully proved the assembly of the accused persons after making preparation for committing dacoity. In our opinion it was not at all necessary to hold any identification parade in view of the facts of this case since the accused persons were apprehended on the spot. 25. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of acquittal passed by the court below and convict the respondents under Sections 399 and 402 I. P. C. and sentence them to three years' rigorous imprisonment on each count. The acquittal of respondents. Khubiram, Dharam Singh, Ragghu, Najju and Jamil. under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act, however, cannot be set aside as there was no appeal on behalf of the State so far as the acquittal in respect of the charge under that section was concerned. The sentences of the respondents under Sections 399 and 402, I. P. C. shall run concurrently. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 are on bail. Their bail bonds are can-celled. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentences imposed on them by this Court. Respondent No. 7 is in jail. He shall serve out the sentences imposed by this Court.