JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - The applicant Natthi was charge-sheeted for having kidnapped a minor boy Lakho on 21st September, 1968 at about 4-5 P.M. from Mohalla Kishanpara, P. S. Firozabad with the intention to confine the boy wrongfully and thus having committed an offence punishable u/s 365 IPC. He was further charged that he having wrongfully confined the said boy with the purpose of extorting money from his father Ram Babu and thus committed an offence punishable u/s 347 IPC. He was further charge-sheeted for the offence u/s 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act for being in possession of a pistol. Along with the applicant Natthi, accused Maharaj Singh, Gulzari and Raj Vir Singh were also charged for the offence of kidnapping and wrongfully confining u/s 365 IPC and 347 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution was that Lakho, who was aged about 5 years was the son of Shri Krishna (PW 3). On 21st September, 1968 the family members of the family of Shri Krishna found Lakho missing from the house. Shri Krishna and his brother Ram Babu made efforts to trace him but they failed in doing so. The fact that Lakho was missing from the house was even announced by loudspeaker in the city. When they failed to find Lakho a first information report was lodged with the police at P. S. Firozabad. It, however, appears that Lakho could not be traced till 2nd November, 1968 when at about 8.30 P.M. Natthi came to Ram Babu to the latter's shop and told him that he had got Lakho with him and that he could give back the boy provided he was prepared to pay Rs. 5000/- for that purpose. Ram Babu agreed to pay Rs. 5000/- to Natthi demanded by him as ransome. Ram Babu told this fact to his brother Shri Krishna and after making arrangement for the sum of Rs. 5000/- they were going to Meetna Ki Pulia with that sum in the hand when they met Sub-Inspector in the way who enquired about the whereabouts of the boy. It was thereupon that Shri Krishna and Ram Babu told the Sub-Inspector of their meeting Natthi and the fact that they were going to pay the amount of Rs. 5000/- to Natthi for getting back Lakho. Sub-Inspector, however, decided to go with them with a party to arrest Natthi. It was thereupon that Shri Krishna and Ram Babu told the Sub-Inspector of their meeting Natthi and the fact that they were going to pay the amount of Rs. 5000/- to Natthi for getting back Lakho. Sub-Inspector, however, decided to go with them with a party to arrest Natthi. After having reached the spot, the Sub-Inspector and others who had accompanied Ram Babu and Sri Krishna concealed themselves behind the trees in the field. At about 5 P.M. the miscreants came with the boy and started talking about the ransome. The money was paid by Ram Babu to Natthi. Thereupon the police intervened and succeeded in arresting Natthi at spot with Rs. 3000/-. On a search being made the police also found a pistol from the folds of the Dhoti of Natthi. After investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet u/s 365 IPC as well as 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act against Natthi and 3 others, as mentioned above. It, however, appears that the Magistrate being of the opinion that the case was such which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions committed the accused u/s 365 IPC. The case u/s 25 of the Arms Act was also committed to the Court of Sessions. After the receipt of the case the Assistant Sessions Judge modified the charges and splitted the same into one u/s 365 and 347 IPC. To prove its case the prosecution produced a number of witnesses. Natthi accused pleaded not guilty and asserted that he had been falsely implicated by the police. It was denied by him that he had demanded any ransom and that the sum of Rs. 3000/- was recovered from his possession not in the manner alleged by the prosecution. His case was that he was arrested from his house and that the sum of Rs. 3000/- was taken by the police from his house which he had obtained on loan. 3. After examining the case of the prosecution as well as the defence of the accused Natthi the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Agra found that the applicant as well as the 3 other accused persons were guilty of the offence punishable u/s 347 IPC. Hence each one of them were convicted and sentenced to R. I. for two years. He further found them guilty of having committed the offence u/s 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. Sessions Judge, Agra found that the applicant as well as the 3 other accused persons were guilty of the offence punishable u/s 347 IPC. Hence each one of them were convicted and sentenced to R. I. for two years. He further found them guilty of having committed the offence u/s 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. Since the view of the learned Sessions Judge was that the accused had not committed any offence u/s IPC therefore, he acquitted them of this charge. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge Natthi and others preferred two separate appeals before the leaned Sessions Judge. These appeals were decided by a common judgment dated 28th August, 1972. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by Maharaj Singh, Gulzari and Raj Vir Singh but dismissed that of the applicant. Hence this revision. 4. Shri Tej Pal Singh, counsel appearing for the applicant advanced two arguments before me. The first submission made by the learned Counsel was that as the case of the applicant was inextricably connected with that of Maharaj Singh, Raj Vir Singh and Gulzari, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted the applicant as well on the finding arrived at by him in favour of the other three accused. He contended that the case of the prosecution was such that either it could have teen relieved as a whole or disbelieved, it was not possible for the learned Sessions Judge to have convicted the applicant Natthi on the finding that he detained Lakho. In this connection reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on Ex. Ka-6 a copy of the general diary. It was attempted to show from this Ex. Ka-6 that the allegations of the prosecution were that all the 4 accused were arrested by the police at the spot and he asserted that as from the general diary it was apparent that the case against Natthi was common as the same as that which has been taken against others, therefore, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal of Natthi is bad. The submission made is untenable. After a careful examination of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge found that Natthi had gone to Ram Batu on 3rd November, 1968 and had told him. The submission made is untenable. After a careful examination of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge found that Natthi had gone to Ram Batu on 3rd November, 1968 and had told him. that he had Lakho with him and that he was prepared to give back Lakho to Ram Babu provided Ram Babu was prepared to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to him. The statements of Ram Kishan (PW 3), Raghunath Singh (PW 1) Chhotey Singh (PW 4) established that these persons had gone to Meetna Ki Puliya on the night of 3rd November, 1968 for the purpose of taking back Lakho. It also came in the evidence of these persons that the amount of Rs. 5000/- was given to Natthi and that out of that Rs. 5000/- a sum of Rs. 3000/-was immediately recovered by the police on the spot. These witnesses further stated that Lakho was brought by Natthi at about 5 A.M. on the 4th November, 1968. Trial Court found that these facts established that Natthi had. kept Lakho in wrongful confinement to extort money. The finding was affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found that so far as Maharaja Singh, Raj Vir Singh and Gulzari were concerned, the evidence brought by the prosecution only was that they had come to the spot along with Natthi and that there was no evidence to show that they had detained or they abetted Natthi or any body else in detaining or confining the boy. On this the view taken was that the prosecution had failed to make out any case against those persons u/s 365/347 IPC. The findings mentioned above would thus show that the case of Natthi was clearly distinguishable from that of Maharaj Singh, Raj Vir Singh and Gulzari. Even if it may be correct that the allegations made against 4 persons were, to some extent, similar in nature in Ex. Ka-6, which is a copy of the General Diary that does not mean that those three persons had to be convicted along with Natthi even, when the prosecution failed to establish that they had detained the child or had helped or abetted Natthi in detaining him. Ka-6, which is a copy of the General Diary that does not mean that those three persons had to be convicted along with Natthi even, when the prosecution failed to establish that they had detained the child or had helped or abetted Natthi in detaining him. It has already been mentioned by me that the two Courts below found from the evidence brought on record, by the prosecution that Natthi admitted that he had detained the child with him to Ram Babu and thereafter asked Ram Babu to pay Rs. 5000/- for return of the boy. The statement of Ram Babu coupled with the fact that Lakho was brought by Natthi at 5 A.M. in the morning of the 4th November, 1968 established beyond all reasonable doubt that Natthi was responsible for the offence, ft is settled that where it is possible to separate falsehood from the truth the prosecution case can be accepted in part and a person against whom the allegitions have been established can be convicted. Therefore, I am. not prepared to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and to hold that the proper course which ought to have been taken by the Courts below was to acquit Natthi applicant as well along with the three other accused. Counsel for the applicant had made a reference to certain cases in support of the proposition mentioned above but as there is no quarrel with the proposition advanced by him, it is not necessary for me to deal with those cases. 5. The second submission made by the learned Counsel was that the applicant Natthi should have been committed to the Court of Sessions only for standing his trial u/s 365 IPC the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to frame a charge in respect of the offence u/s 347 IPC as well. The submission made is wholly untenable. Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowered the learned Sessions Judge to do so. Under that section on the same set of facts he could alter the charge since the record of the case warranted the same. The submission made is wholly untenable. Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowered the learned Sessions Judge to do so. Under that section on the same set of facts he could alter the charge since the record of the case warranted the same. I am, therefore, not prepared to allow this revision on this question, particularly, when the counsel for the applicant was unable to show that any prejudice was caused to the applicant on account of the alteration or modification of the charge, ft is worthy of being noted that an offense u/s 347 is of a minor nature in comparison to that u/s 365 IPC. 6. The third submission was that as the offence contemplated by Section 25(1)(a) Arms Act was triable exclusively by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, therefore, the applicant ought to have been tried separately for the said offence, specially when there is no provision of consolidating two charges under the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not wish to devote any time to discuss this point of the learned Counsel as to my mind the defect, if any, which I am not prepared to accept in this case was curable and that the sentence of the applicant cannot be set aside on that basis. Section 532 Code of Criminal Procedure is a provision enacted to meet such a contingency. Moreover, it may be pointed out that u/s 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act the applicant has been awarded one year's R.I. whereas u/s 347 IPC the sentence awarded to him is two years R.I. Even if the sentence of the applicant u/s 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act is set aside on this ground, the applicant would not stand to gain as he has to undergo R.I. for two years u/s 347 IPC particularly, when both the sentences have to run concurrently. 7. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He will surrender to his bail bonds, failing which he shall be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him. His bail-bonds are cancelled.