JUDGMENT U.K. Varma, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the acquittal of the respondents of the charges under Sections 148, 395, 427/149, 121, 121-A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, 6 (a), 6 (b), 6 (c) of the U.P. P. A. C. Act, Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922, Section 3 of the Police Forces Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 and Rule 43 of the Defence of India Rules. The respondent Mahesh Chandra Pandey having died during the pendency of this appeal, it has abated against him. 2. The first information report in respect of the incident was lodged in the Police Station Kotwali Fatehpur by Beg Raj Singh, an Adjutant in the XII Battalion P. A. C. Fatehpur at 6.20 a. m. on 22-5-1973. It discloses that while he was at the residence of the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, he received telephonic information that the personnel constituting the above Battalion had revolted. They had broken open the Quarter Guard and taken out the arms and ammunition and pitched themselves at various places in and around the Battalion buildings and other places, adamant to fight and some of them had proceeded towards the Policelines there. 3. Hanuman Singh, Head Constable Moharrir of the Police Station Kotwali (P. W. 2) prepared the check- report Ex. Ka. 1 on its basis and got this case registered by Constable Moharrir Dalram Singh under Sections 147, 148, 149, 121, 122, 123 and 426 of the I.P.C., Section 6 of the P. A. C. Act and Rule 43 (5) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971. 4. The investigation was entrusted to the Sub-Inspector M. P. Singh, Second officer of the Police Station Kotwali on 28-5-1973. He recorded the statements of Beg Ram Singh Adjutant (P. W. 4), Virendra Singh, Sheo Mangal Singh, Subedar Major (P. W. 1), Rainvir Singh, Quarter Master (P. W. 11), Lalsa Singh, S. I. M. T (P. W. 12), Balagiri, Platoon Commander (P. W. 3), Sukhdeo Singh, Platoon Commander (P. W. 14) and Punnan Mani Platoon Commander (P. W. 13) and got the Quarter Guard Photographed by Om Prakash Shukla on that day. On 29-5-1973, he pointed to have examined Head Constable Jai Ram Yadava (P. W. 5), Rama Shanker Constable on Sentry duty at the armoury (P. W. 7), Jagdish Narain Shukla and others. On 29-5-1973, he pointed to have examined Head Constable Jai Ram Yadava (P. W. 5), Rama Shanker Constable on Sentry duty at the armoury (P. W. 7), Jagdish Narain Shukla and others. He claimed to have arrested Krishna Gopal, accused Platoon Commander (P. W. 11) on 3-5-1973, Mahesh Chand Pandey accused on 3-5-1973 and the remaining accused arrayed as respondents on 2-6-1773. He submitted charge-sheet Ex. Ka. 17 against the sixteen respondents under Sections 148, 395, 427/149 of the I.P.C., 6 (a), 6 (b) and 6 (c) of the U.P. P. A. C. Act, Section 3 of the Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 and Rule 43 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971. The Sessions Judge additionally charged the respondents under Sections 121, 121 (A) and 122 of the I.P.C. 5. Coming now to the gist of the prosecution evidence adduced, we find Sheo Mangal Singh, Subedar Major in the XII-A Battalion, P. A. C. (P. W. 1), on whose telephonic talk Beg Ram Singh (P. W. 4) lodged report, to have stated that Raghunandan Singh Company Commander of the 'C' Company XII P. A. C. Battalion (P. W. 9) was his neighbour. He told him that the P. A. C. constabulary had broken open the armoury, the key of which was with him, and were mounting towards the office building with the guns and magazines taken from the armoury. He saw for himself what had been communicated to him by Raghunandan Singh end went to the house of Captain Kaja Ram Singh to inform the Adjutant on telephone of the same. 6. Raghunandan Singh Company Commander of the `C' Company in the XII Battalion P. A. C. (P. W. 9) deposed that between 4.30 a. m. and 5.00 a. m. on 22-5-1973 he saw many persons proceeding towards the armoury where there was a commotion. He, from his residential quarter came up to the mosque and saw the respondent Samharoo Prasad of the `C' Company on the roof of the armoury building. He had removed some tiles. Ganga Prasad, respondent from the opening so created had got down and was handing arms and ammunitions to Samharoo Prasad who distributed them to the respondents Ashok Kumar, Suresh Singh, Suresh Kumar, Sewa Singh, Qutub Uddin, Zafar Ali, Raj Karan, Mahesh Chandra Pandey, Krishna Gopal, Taluka Prasad, Rajendra Singh, Manhar Singh, Sita Saran and Magan Bahadur. Ganga Prasad, respondent from the opening so created had got down and was handing arms and ammunitions to Samharoo Prasad who distributed them to the respondents Ashok Kumar, Suresh Singh, Suresh Kumar, Sewa Singh, Qutub Uddin, Zafar Ali, Raj Karan, Mahesh Chandra Pandey, Krishna Gopal, Taluka Prasad, Rajendra Singh, Manhar Singh, Sita Saran and Magan Bahadur. The respondent Sita Saran broke open the tin doors of the armoury with a hammer. The deceased respondent Mahesh Pandey when he saw him approaching the armoury called him a traitor and thereupon others pursued him. Sensing trouble, he fled away. The arms and ammunitions so taken away from the armoury were surrendered on 23-5-1972 and thereupon their list had been prepared. 7. Balagiri Platoon Commander in the XII Battalion P. A. C. (P. W. 3) stated that on 22-5-1973 at 5.00 a. m. he had seen the P. A. C. constabulary raising hue and cry and looting the armoury. Mahesh Chandra Pandey, respondent who was the President of his Parishad made him prisoner along with Sukhdeo Singh Platoon Commander (P. W. 14), Samharoo, Ashok Kumar Singh, Suresh Singh and others were seen corning with the rifles which they had taken out of the armoury. Krishna Gopal Singh was giving speech and inciting disobedience. 8. Sukhdeo Singh (P. W. 14), Platoon Commander who was Day officer on 22-5-1973 stated that he heard the furore and `khat-khat' sound but did not see any thing else. He denied his alleged statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. 9. Jai Ram Yadav (P. W. 5) narrated that on 22-5-1973 he was posted as officiating Head Constable quarter general `E' company XII Battalion P. A. C. Fatehpur. The respondent Qutubuddin was the first Guard Commander whereas he was the second Guard Commander. Raghubir Sahai Tripathi, Jitendra Singh, Ram Kishan and Bharat Singh and others were posted as constables alongwith him. Sukhdeo Singh, Platoon Commander (P. W. 14), infurled the P. A. C. flag in his presence. At 4.30 a. m. the respondent Mahesh Pandey arrived with Sita Saran Pandey and Samharoo at the quarter guard and informed that the army was arriving from Kanpur and would take custody of the P. A. C. quarter guard and that they had to be prepared to resist it. At 4.30 a. m. the respondent Mahesh Pandey arrived with Sita Saran Pandey and Samharoo at the quarter guard and informed that the army was arriving from Kanpur and would take custody of the P. A. C. quarter guard and that they had to be prepared to resist it. Two hundred constables arrived and they seized the ride of the constable Rama Shanker who was on the front side of the quarter guard and Babu Lal who was on the back side. They took out the rifles kept in the armoury over which Samharoo and Ganga Prasad had climbed and Ganga Prasad had jumped inside after making an opening. Ganga Prasad picking up the rifles had passed there to Samharoo who in his turn had distributed them amongst the constables gathered there but he could not tell their names The lock of the room containing magazine had been broken open by Sita Saran respondent with a hammer. He and the constables posted with him and also the respondent Qutubuddin, First Guard Commander had been asked to keep themselves confined in the guard room and not come out. The locks of all the seven rooms had been broken. 10. Roop Kishore Srivastava (P W. 6) Platoon Commander of the 'E' Company in the XII Battalion P. A. C. stated that on 22-5-1973 at 5.15 a. m., on coming out of his residential quarter, he saw that the P. A C. constables were gathering near the quarter guard and there was considerable hustle and bus. He went there and saw that Mahesh and Krishna Gopal were leading and inciting them that they had to fight the army. Qutub Uddin and Samharoo told each other that they had to snatch the key from him. On hearing it, he fled towards his residential quarter and heard it being said that he was a traitor and all the traitors were to be shot. 11. Rama Shanker (P. W. 7) stated that he was on Sentry duty in front of the armoury room on 22-5-73 in the XII Battalion P. A C. Fatehpur. The respondents Mahesh Chandra Pandey and Samharoo arrived at 4.30 a. m. and snatched his rifle and asked him to sit in the guard room. He saw that the constabulary had taken out the arms and ammunitions and had taken position inside the campus. The respondents Mahesh Chandra Pandey and Samharoo arrived at 4.30 a. m. and snatched his rifle and asked him to sit in the guard room. He saw that the constabulary had taken out the arms and ammunitions and had taken position inside the campus. The respondent Qutub Uddin was also confined with him in the guard room besides Jitendra Singh, Raghubir Sahai, Ram Swaroop, Ram Autar Dohray and Babu Lal. 12. Ram Sunder Tewari Company Commander of the `D' Company in the XII Battalion P.A.C. Fatehpur (P. W. 10) stated that at 4.30 a. m. on 22-5-1973 on seeing turmoil in the P. A. C. Compound, Fatehpur he came out of his quarter and saw that Samharoo Prasad respondent had climbed the roof of the armoury of the `C' Company and was removing the tiles. One of the cons tables had got down. He was handing the arms to Samharoo who had been distributing it amongst the employees. Ganga Saran had been seen breaking open the doors with a hammer. Mahesh Chandra Pandey and Krishna Gopal were inciting the constables to be prepared for facing the army and not to hand over position The respondents Mohar Singh, Ganga Prasad, Magan Bahadur, Zaffar Ali, Raj Karan Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Rajendra Singh, Sewa Singh, Qutub Uddin and others were carrying arms and ammunitions and were distributing the same to others. They had taken position at the P. A. C, building, checking the duty of others and proclaiming that the traitors should be shot deed. 13. Ram Gopal Platoon Commander of the 'A' Company in the XII Battalion P. A. C. (P. W. 11) deposed that on hearing the clamour, he came out of his residence and went towards the office. He saw Samharoo Prasad removing the roof of the armoury and another constable who had got inside through the opening handing over arms to him. He also pointed that he had seen Sita Saran breaking open the door with a hammer and the respondents Suresh Kumar Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Mohar Singh, Rajeadra Singh, Magan Bahadur Singh, Ganga Nrasad, Taluka Prasad, Sewa Singh, Qutub Uddia, Zafar Ali, Raj Karan Singh distributing the arms and asking the constable to take position. Mahesh Pandey, President of the Parishad was inciting constables to be prepared to fight the army and was spreading indiscipline. 14. Mahesh Pandey, President of the Parishad was inciting constables to be prepared to fight the army and was spreading indiscipline. 14. Lalsa Singh (P. W. 12) who was S. I. M. T. in the XII P. A. C. Battalion on 22-5-1973 deposed that after coming out of his residence he went near the quarter guard on finding that there was furore there. He saw the armoury surrounded by the P. A. C. personnel. The respondents Mahesh Pandey, Krishna Gopal Singh, Samharoo Prasad, Suresh Singh, Rajendra Singh, Sewa Singh Ashok Kumar Singh and Qutub Uddin were distributing the arms and ammunitions and asking the constables to resist the military force. The Hawaldars Vishram Singh and Surya Karan Singh had rifles in their hands. The respondents Zafar Ali and Ram Karan Singh had parked vehicles in front of the office. On 22-5-1973 and till such time on 23-5-1973 when they surrendered, the control of the command of the XII Battalion P. A. C. Fatehpur was with the respondents. 15. Punnan Mani Tripathi, Platoon Commander of `D' Company (P. W. 13) deposed that on 22-5-1973 he enquired from Bhajan Lal, Head Constable as to where he was going. He told him that he was going towards the quarter guard as the army was coming to take charge. When he came near the north eastern side of the office, he saw Ganga Prasad and Samharoo Prasad removing the tiles of the roof of the armoury of the 'C' Company Sita Saran was breaking open the door with a hammer. Ganga Prasad got inside the armoury and passed on the rifles for distribution to Ashok Kumar Singh, Suresh Singh, Taluka Prasad, Magan Bahadur Singh, Brij Bhan Singh, Raj Karan Singh and Zafar Ali. Krishna Gopal Singh and Mahesh Chandra Pandey were inciting and asking the constables to be prepared to meet the army. 16. Ram Veer Singh (P. W. 17) Quarter Master XII Battalion P. A. C., Fatehpur stated that at 5.00 a. m. on 22-5-1973 he saw that the P. A. C. employees had taken out rifles and arms and ammunitions from the armoury and had taken position in the P. A. C Compound. He noticed that Mahesh Pandey, Krishna Gopal and Surendra Prasad had guns with them. They were inciting that they had to resist the military force. He noticed that Mahesh Pandey, Krishna Gopal and Surendra Prasad had guns with them. They were inciting that they had to resist the military force. He went to the Superintendent of Police to inform him of the happening as he had the keys of the armoury and magazine with him. At 4.00 p. m. on 23-5-1973 he checked the arms and ammunitions surrendered by the P. A. C. personnel and submitted the report Ex. Ka-7. He proved the G. D. entry Ex. Ka. 8 where from it follows that due to the absence of control over the office it had not been maintained on 22-5-1973 and upto 4 p. in. on 23-5-1973. It bears the signature of the G. D. writer Prabhu Nath and his own endorsement. The G.D. entry Ex. Ka. 9 about which he deposed contains the direction of the Commandant that all the arms and ammunitions of the companies should be taken control of by the Assistant Commandant Virendra Singh and kept in the Court room of the Collectorate. The G. D. entry Ex. Ka. 10 regarding which he vouchsafed shows that he took charge of the arms and ammunitions of all the companies through the Head Constable Qutubuddin respondent excepting the arms and ammunitions detailed in it. 17. R. D. Singh, Operator Telephone Exchange, Fatehpur (P. W. 15) gave out that he was the Telephone Operator of the Telephone Exchange on 22-5-1973. About 1 p. m. three P. A. C. constables in uniform carrying rifles and two or three persons in plain dress asked him to close the Telephone Exchange. The Telephone Operator R.B. Singh at that time was working along with him. The Telephone Inspector was also present there. On being threatened that they would be dealt with severely if they did not behave as asked, they went away. The work in the Telephone Exchange was resumed only at 4 p. m. on 23-5-1973. 18. The prosecution witness M. D. Tewari, Upper Division Assistant (P. W. 16, proved the sanction Ex. Ka. 6 for prosecution of the respondents under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123 and 124-A of the Indian Penal Code. 19. The Investigating Officer M. P. Singh (P. W. 18, besides narrating how he had investigated the case and proving the alleged statements of the prosecution witnesses which they denied to have made, proved the sanction of the District Magistrate, Ex. Ka. 19. The Investigating Officer M. P. Singh (P. W. 18, besides narrating how he had investigated the case and proving the alleged statements of the prosecution witnesses which they denied to have made, proved the sanction of the District Magistrate, Ex. Ka. 13 for the prosecution of the respondents under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1922 marked Ex. Ka. 13. 20. The respondents pleaded not guilty. Krishna Gopal Singh. respondent No. 1 stated that he had been confined in the P. A. C. hospital between 17-5-1973 to 30-5-1973 and because of the serious ailments could not have participated in the crime. 21. Mahesh Chandra respondent No.2 against whom the appeal has abated had taken the defence that he had applied for thirty days leave from the Company Commander Raghunandan Singh and on his refusal to grant the dave he had made complaint to the Adjutant annoying both of them. 22. Suresh Kumar, respondent No. 3 pointed that he had been confined in the P. A. C. hospital between May 18, 1973 and May 24, 1973 and on account of serious illness was not in a position to participate in the crime in question. 23. Sewa Singh, respondent No. 4 stated that he had been falsely implicated as he had declined to do personal work of the officers. 24. Ashok Kumar, respondent No. 5 had also taken the same plea. 25. Qutubuddin, respondent No. 6 stated that the officers got annoyed with him as he did not agree to participate in the sports etc. He had been posted for the first time in the Quarter Guard regarding the working of which he was not familiar. 26. Rajendra Singh, respondent No. 7 pointed that the Company Commanders Ram Sunder Tewari and Jagdish Narain Shukla got unhappy with him as he reported against them to the Adjutant. 27. Suresh Singh, respondent No. 8 stated that he was falsely implicated because of his refusal to do `Begar'. 28. Sita Saran, respondent No. 9 also gave the same statement 29. Samharu Prasad, respondent No. 10 too gave a similar statement. 30. Ganga Prasad, respondent No. 11 pointed that he was a mason and had been falsely implicated because of his refusal to do the private work of the officers. 31. 28. Sita Saran, respondent No. 9 also gave the same statement 29. Samharu Prasad, respondent No. 10 too gave a similar statement. 30. Ganga Prasad, respondent No. 11 pointed that he was a mason and had been falsely implicated because of his refusal to do the private work of the officers. 31. Taluka Prasad, respondent No. 12 stated that he was admitted in the hospital between 9-5-1973 and 21-5-1973 and was not in a position to stir out of the hospital. 32. Zafar Ali, respondent No. 13, suggested that he had been falsely implicated because he did not facilitate the officers in using the Government vehicles for personal comforts. 33. Ram Karan Singh, respondent No. 14 also took the same stand as Zafar Ali. 34. Magan Bahadur Singh, respondent No. 15 alleged that the Company Commander Ram Sunder Singh had become unhappy with him and also the other hockey players. 35. Mohar Singh, respondent No. 16 pointed that he was admitted in the hospital between 19-5-1973 and 2-6-1973 and was not in a position to move out. 36. The respondents in defence had examined Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla (D. W. 1). He pointed that Suresh Kumar respondent No. 3 was admitted in the P. A. C. hospital as an indoor patient on account of dysentery. Mohar Singh respondent No. l was admitted in the P. A. C. hospital between 19-5 1973 and 2-6-1973 and had not been discharged during this period. Taluka Prasad, respondent No. 2 was admitted in the hospital between 9-5-1973 and 21-5-1973 in the P. A. C. hospital as a case of diarrhoea. Magan Bahadur, respondent No. 15 was admitted in the hospital between 29-5-1973 and 2-6-1973, Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla (D. W. 1) further stated that the P.A.C. constabulary had surrendered arms before the District Magistrate Sri S.D. Bagla in his presence on 21-5-1973. They showed respect to him and the document Ex. Kha. 3 had been signed by the District Magistrate in his presence. In the cross-examination he gave out that Mohar Singh due to illness was not in a position to move out. So far as those suffering from dysentery were concerned, he stated that they could move out of the hospital although as per rules they should not have done so. The respondent Krishna Gopal before us moved an application to file copy of the statement of Dr. So far as those suffering from dysentery were concerned, he stated that they could move out of the hospital although as per rules they should not have done so. The respondent Krishna Gopal before us moved an application to file copy of the statement of Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla dated 30-7-1979 given in the S. T. No. A-84/75 that Krishna Gopal was admitted in the hospital between 17-5-1973 and 30-5-1973 on account of serious illness and was not in a position to move about. Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla had been examined in this case. No question about illness of Krishna Gopal, respondent No. 1 on 22-5-1971 and 23-5-1973 had been put to him. The statement of Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla given in S. T. No. A-84/75 could not be admitted in evidence in this case. The judgment of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S. T. No. A-84/75 delivered on 29-6-1990, however, had been admitted on record although it was in respect of an incident of a later date when he again was alleged to have tried to spread disaffection in the A. P. C. 37. The Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment whereby he acquitted the respondents observed :- (i) that the F.I.R. was conspicuous by the absence of the names of the accused and of witnesses and had not been lodged by an eye witness of the occurrence and the prosecution had failed to explain why responsible officers who had seen the occurrence did not lodge the report. (ii) that there was no evidence that any entry was made about this occurrence in the G. D. maintained in the P. A. C. (iii) that there was no material evidence on record to show that the armoury and magazine had been broken open. The tiles, the broken lock and the hammer with which the locks were broken had not been produced as material exhibits along with the negative of the photographs showing that an opening had been made in the roof. (iv) that none of the accused had been arrested with any arm and ammunition and there was no evidence to show that the accused had surrendered them before the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. (v) that a number of witnesses had turned hostile and most of them had not stated about the participation of all the respondents and their statements under Section 161, Cr. (v) that a number of witnesses had turned hostile and most of them had not stated about the participation of all the respondents and their statements under Section 161, Cr. P. C. having been recorded very late their credibility was reduced. He had also drawn inference against the prosecution for having not produced outsiders who must have seen the occurrence in case it would have happened as alleged. (vi) that if the respondents would have committed the crime alleged, they would not have been paid their salary but would have been suspended. (vii) that the statement of the Medical officer Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla about Suresh Kumar, Mohar Singh and Taluqa Prasad was not liable to be ignored. (viii) that the respondents could not have been convicted under Section 3 of the Police Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and in respect of offences mentioned in Section 196, Cr. P. C. as sanction in respect of them had been received from the District Magistrate only after the charge had been framed by the Sessions Judge. 38. This appeal being against acquittal we are proceeding first to consider whether the grounds for acquittal listed above are unreasonable or not, fully conscious of the legal position that this Court has to be slow in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial Court even if it was possible to reach a different conclusion unless was find the same, to be unjust and untenable based on wrong assumptions of fact and law. 39. The point No. 1 as to why an eye-witness did not lodge the first information report should not have so much weighted with the Court below particularly because it was not possible for any single person to have seen all what had happened between 4.30 a. m. on 22-5-1973 and 4.00 p. m. on 23-5 1973 during which the command of the XII Battalion P. A. C. was alleged to have been taken over in an unauthorised manner by the armed constabulary. The first information report speaks about the breaking open of the armoury and the taking of the arms therefrom and the constabulary taking position in the campus to fight and even marching to the Police Lines without the permission therefor. Then the persons involved were not just a few, but so many. The first information report speaks about the breaking open of the armoury and the taking of the arms therefrom and the constabulary taking position in the campus to fight and even marching to the Police Lines without the permission therefor. Then the persons involved were not just a few, but so many. The incident also was not confined to a very limited area as could be noticed by a single glance. Things happened at the same time at different places in the campus. The report besides being directed against the constabulary of the X[1 Battalion P.A.C. had to be lodged by some one in authority. There is evidence on record that the Commandant of the XII Battalion was not at Fatehpur but had gone to Lucknow. It the Adjutant who was a responsible officer in the Battalion instead of waiting to see things for himself which perhaps he might not have able to, on account of the general revolt about which he had satisfied himself, lodged the first information report on the basis of information conveyed to him on phone, the Court below should not have allowed himself to be prejudiced so as to view the case with suspicion but should have scrutinised the evidence on merits. The fact that the Commandant of the District Magistrate or the Superintendent of Police were not examined as witnesses also should not have so heavily weighed against the prosecution and inference should not ha,. a been drawn on the basis of their non-production if other eye-witnesses were there to testify to the events wherefrom a crime case against the respondents had been made out. 40. Coming now to the second point, we find that there is the testimony of Ramvir Singh, Quarter Master, XII Battalion P. A. C. (P. W. 17) that the G. D. could not be written on 22-5-1973 and upto 4.00 p. m. on 23-5-1973 as the revolting constables had taken control of the office. The document Ex Ka 8, which is copy of the G. D. clearly so reads. The inference drawn by the Additional Sessions Judge because of the non-maintenance of the G. D. was, thus, wholly unwarranted. 41. So far as the third point is concerned that also is unworthy for disbelieving the basic structure of the prosecution case. The document Ex Ka 8, which is copy of the G. D. clearly so reads. The inference drawn by the Additional Sessions Judge because of the non-maintenance of the G. D. was, thus, wholly unwarranted. 41. So far as the third point is concerned that also is unworthy for disbelieving the basic structure of the prosecution case. The prosecution had examined Raghunandan Prasad, Commander of the `C' Company (P. W. 9), Sheo Mangal Singh, Subedar Major (P. W. 1 , Lalsa Singh, S. I. M. T. P. W. 12), Punnan Mani Tripathi, Platoon Commander (P. W. 1 ), Jai Ram Yadav, Head Constable (P. W. 5), Ram Gopal, Platoon Commander `A' Company (P. W. 11, and Ram Sunder Tewari Company Commander `D' Company (P. W. 10) to prove as to how the arms and ammunitions had been taken out after Samharoo Prasad and Ganga Prasad had made an opening in the roof by removal of the tiles and how Sita Ram with his hammer had broken open the locks of the door. No serious cross-examination had been directed against the statement that the roof had been opened and the doors and their locks had been broken and the arms and ammunitions had been taken away. The non production of the removed tiles or broken locks etc. was of no consequence at all.Similarly non-tiling of the negative photograph showing opening in the roof was also not indispensable for substantiating that fact when the avowed statements of so many witnesses had not been seriously challenged. We have in this regard further the statements of Balagiri. Platoon Commander (P. W 3) and Rama Shanker, Head Constable on Sentry duty (P. W. 7), Bilagiri stated that at 5 a. m. on 22-5-1973, he had seen the P. A. C. constable jostling and going with the looted arms and ammunitions. Mahesh Chandra Pandey, Head Constable had wrongfully confined him. Krishna Gopal was heard making speech. Rama Shanker Constable (P. W. 7) stated that Mahesh Pandey and Samharoo Prasad snatched away his rifle and put him in the guard room from where he saw that arms, ammunitions had been taken out. The Additional Sessions Judge had not paid due attention to these statements. 42. As regards the fourth point, it is to be noted that the Additional Sessions Judge had not at all cared to read the evidence on record. Even the defence witness Dr. The Additional Sessions Judge had not paid due attention to these statements. 42. As regards the fourth point, it is to be noted that the Additional Sessions Judge had not at all cared to read the evidence on record. Even the defence witness Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla had stated that on 23-5-1973 the constables of the P. A. C. had surrendered the arms before the District Magistrate in his presence. The prosecution witnesses Raghunandan ziingh, Company Commander `C' Company (P. W. 9), Lalsa Singh, S. I. M. C. (P. W. 12) and Ranvir Singh, Quarter Master XII Battalion (P. W. 17) had deposed about the surrender. He stated that the report Ex. Ka. 7 had been written by him after he had checked the arms and ammunitions which had been surrendered. The document Ex. Ka. 7 shows that there had been some shortage and the same had been reported to the Commandant. The document Ex. Ka. 10 which is the copy of the G. D. entry No. 3 made at 4.30 p. in. on 23-5-1974 shows that the respondent Qutubuddin had not handed charge of some of the items and that the charge in respect of the surrendered arras and ammunitions of all the companies had been taken in the presence of Virendra Singh, Assistant Commandant of the P. A. C. Simply because no recovery was proved from the respondents specifically, inference could not be drawn that the arms and ammunitions had not at all been taken away or that the respondents could not have a hand in it even though by other evidence it could be shown that they were also amongst those who had taken away the arms and those were in the surrendered heep about which Ex. Ka. 7 had been drawn. 43. So far as the point No. 5 is concerned, the Additional Sessions Judge lost sight of the fact that in this case witnesses had been called upon to make statement against their fellow workers and if some of them could not get over the hesitancy to speak out the truth unmindful of the serious consequences, thereof, the prosecution did not stand discredited but the worth of the evidence led had to be examined and conclusion arrived at without allowing the judgment to be unduly influenced by the above feature. The delay in recording the statement of some witnesses under Section 161, Cr. The delay in recording the statement of some witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. also had been given undue notice. The Sessions Judge was required as laid down in Lalji v. State, AIR 1986 SC at page 990 to see each case of delay in its proper perspective and out right rejection could not be held justified as held in Nanhu Ram v. State of M.P., AIR SC 912. 44. With regard to the point No. 6 we have to say that it is totally misconceived and no inference against the prosecution is justifiable on the basis of the non-suspension of the respondents and payment of salary to them in spite of this case. 45. So far as the point No. 7 is concerned it relates to the respondents Suresh Kumar, Mohar Singh and Taluka Prasad. We would certainly examine the evidence on record against these respondents and if we find that a reasonable conclusion is possible about their non-participation or of any one of them, he would get the benefit thereof. 46. So far as the point No. 8 is concerned it is about a purely legal proposition and being not relating to a finding of tact, the judgment of acquittal by the Court below cannot be permitted to influence our judgment. 47. The above discussion shows that the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge that there was not material evidence on record to show that the armoury and magazine had been broken open or that there was no evidence to prove that arms and ammunitions had been surrendered and that no arms and ammunitions had been found missing, and perverse. The Additional Sessions Judge was also not justified in drawing inference against the prosecution simply because some of the witness had not lodged report against the respondents who had given taken cause the Additional Sessions Judge besides also committed illegality in attaching out of proportion significance to evidence not adduced instead of considering the evidence which had been led. His observation that outsiders should have been examined for satisfying that there was the rising is absurd for the fact of rising wherein the armoury had been broken and arms and ammunitions had been taken away by the constabulary and the control and management of the Commandant had been shaken had not been denied. On the other hand, we find the same to have been admitted. On the other hand, we find the same to have been admitted. It is pertinent in this connection to have a look at the statement of Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla (D. W. 1) that the constables of the P. A. C. had surrendered arms and ammunitions before the District Officer. The respondents then have filed the communications of the Inspector General of Police dated May 12, 1973 marked Ex. Kha. 1 and May 23, 1973 marked Ex. Kha. 2. In the document Ex. Kha. 1 the Inspector General of Police has expressed the view that there could be two associations one of the constables and the head Constables, and the other of the Police Inspectors and that they could watch the interest of their respective cadres, and that they both in keeping with the noble traditions of the police force had to serve the Nation truly in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. The document Ex. Kha. 2 indicates that at some places in the State very unfortunate incidents had taken place and serious indiscipline had been noticed and some inguided elements in the force had taken law in their own hands. The evidence adduced in this case shows that Fatehpur also was one of the places wherein the constables and the Head Constables had revolted though this rising was only for two days that i,, on 22-5-1973 and 23-5-1973. The prosecution witnesses Raghunaudan Prasad Singh, Commander `C' Compaby (P. W. 1), Shiv Mangal Singh, Subedar Major (P. W. 1), Lalsa Singh, S. I. M.. (P. W. 2), Punnan Mani Tripathi, Platoon Commander P. W. 13), Jai Ram Yadav, Head Constable (P. W. 5), Ram Gopal, Platoon Commander 'A' Copy and Ram Sunder Tewari, Company Commander `D' Company had given details how the arms and ammunitions had been taken out of the armoury and the magazine. Raghunandan Prasad Singh (P. W. 9) further had pointed that the key of the armoury was with him. Roop Kishore Srivastava (P. W 6) and Ramvir Singh (P. W. 17) also stated about certain keys of the armoury were in their custody. The counsel for the state invited our attention to the prescribed manner in which the arms and ammunitions could be taken out from the armoury and the magazine room. Roop Kishore Srivastava (P. W 6) and Ramvir Singh (P. W. 17) also stated about certain keys of the armoury were in their custody. The counsel for the state invited our attention to the prescribed manner in which the arms and ammunitions could be taken out from the armoury and the magazine room. There can be no doubt that the taking out of the arms and ammunitions through the hole created in the roof by removal of tiles and the breaking open of the doors and the locks by hammer was unauthorised. Rama Shanker Singh Constable on Sentry duty P. W. 17) had pointed as to how his rifle had been seized from him and how the constables who were to assist him namely, Jitendra Singh, Raghubir Sahai Tripathi, Ram Swarup, Ram Avtar Doharey, Babu Lal and also the Head Constable Qutubuddin, respondent were confined in a room. Balagiri, Platoon Commander (P. W. 3) also had stated that he had been confined. Roop Kishore Srivastava, Platoon Commander (P. W. 6), stated that when Qutubuddin and Samharoo were heard talking in between themselves that the key should be snatched from him he fled away and thereupon he was described a traitor and it was further said that all the traitors ought to be shot. The prosecution evidence is very clear and consistent on the point that Samharoo Prasad had made hole in the roof by removing tiles along with Ganga Prasad, and that Ganga Prasad from the hole had got inside the room and picking up rifles passed them on to the respondents Ashok Kumar, Suresh Singh, Suresh Kumar, Sewa Singh, Qutubuddin, Zatar Ali, Raj Karan, Mahesh Chandra, Krishna Gopal, Taluka Prasad, Rajendra Singh, Mohar Singh, Sita Saran and Magan Bahadur and they had handed arms and ammunitions to so many others. Sita Saran, it has also been consistently pointed by a number of witnesses had with the aid of a hammer broken open the doors and lock of the armoury rooms. The prosecution witness R. D. Singh, Telephone Operator (P. W. 15) had deposed that some armed P. A. C. Constables had given threat and the Telephone Exchange thereupon was closed on 22-5-1973 and could not function till 4 p. m. on 23-5-1973. Ramvir Singh (P. W. 17) Quarter Master pointed that control of the officer had been lost due to the rising of the P. A. C. Constabulary. Ramvir Singh (P. W. 17) Quarter Master pointed that control of the officer had been lost due to the rising of the P. A. C. Constabulary. The Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code which defines unlawful assembly reads as follows : 141. Unlawful assembly.- An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is :- First -To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second -To resist the execution of any law or of any legal process; or Third -To commit any mischief or criminal tresspass, or other offence; or Fourth-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right, or Fifth-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation -An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly." There can be no doubt that in the instant case an assembly of more than five persons had tried to overawe public servants and interfered with in the exercise of their lawful power; had committed mischief by the breaking open of the roof and the doors etc.; had by criminal force obtained possession over the arms and ammunitions and prevented P. A. C. officials and the telephone operators of the Telephone Exchange, Fatehpur to discharge their obligations. The evidence led by the prosecution is also clinching on the point as admitted by Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla (D. W. 1) that arms had been taken away from the armoury and had been surrendered only about 4 p. m. on 23-5-1973. All those who had with firearms constituted unlawful assembly were guilty under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. 48. Ram Sajiwan Shukla (D. W. 1) that arms had been taken away from the armoury and had been surrendered only about 4 p. m. on 23-5-1973. All those who had with firearms constituted unlawful assembly were guilty under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. 48. So far as the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, that also appears to us to have been committed in the instant case. We respectfully are not in agreement with the observation of Hon'ble J. M.L. Sinha and Hon'ble M. M. Gupta, Judges in the Government Appeal No. 436 of 1977 and the Criminal Appeal Nos. 2478, 2587 and 2823 of 1976 State of U.P. v. Bans Narain Singh and others commonly known as the Ram Nagar P. A. C. case that "as the taking out of the arms and ammunitions from the Quarter Guard and the magazine was not with a view to derive any pecuniary advantage or to cause any pecuniary loss and since that act was done by the respondents solely with a view to properly equip themselves so that they could resist army sepoys and prevent them from taking charge of the Quarter Guard, the act committed by them could not attract the application of Section 395) read with Section 397, I.P.C. The Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code which defines `dishonestly' cannot be restricted to the causing of wrongful pecuniary gain or wrongful pecuniary loss to another. On the other hand the section has a much wider ambit. The A--21 taking of arms and ammunitions dishonestly out of the possession of the authority of the Command without the consent of the person empowered to authorise the taking would amount to commitment of theft as defined in Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code and since in the instant case theft falling within the definition of robbery had been committed by more than five persons, the offence of dacoity had been made out. The subject matter of the charge of theft has only to be a movable and cannot be restricted to pecuniary advantage. It is further not necessary that taking should be permanent or with intent to appropriate the thing taken. The subject matter of the charge of theft has only to be a movable and cannot be restricted to pecuniary advantage. It is further not necessary that taking should be permanent or with intent to appropriate the thing taken. In the case of K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC at page 369 it was observed that the definition of theft in Section 378 requires that the moving of the property is to be in order to such taking, dishonestly i. e. the moving must be with dishonest intention. It was elaborated that a person could be said to have dishonest intention if in taking the property it was his intention to cause gain by unlawful means of the property to which the person gaining was not legally entitled or to cause loss by wrongful means of property to which the person losing was legally entitled. The gain or loss contemplated had not to be a total acquisition or a total deprivation. It was enough if it was a temporary retention or a temporary keeping out. In this case air craft had been used for an unauthorised flight. The temporary use of the aircraft by the accused for his own purpose was held to have temporarily deprived the Government of its legitimate use. Such use it had been elucidated was unauthorised gain or loss by unlawful means and amounted to theft. In the case of Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC at page 1094 it had been held that the definition of theft, was satisfied when the tile had been taken out the possession dishonestly though it was intended to be returned. The prosecution witnesses Raghunandan Prasad Company Commander (P W. 9), Balagiri Platoon Commander (P. W. 3) , Jai Ram Yadav, Head Constable (P. W. 5), Roop Kishore Srivastava, Platoon Commander (P. W. 6), Ram Sunder Tewari, Company Commander (P. W. 10) and Punnan Mani Tripathi, Platoon Commander (P. W. 13) stated that they had heard Krishna Gopal inciting disobedience along with the deceased respondent Mahesh Chandra Pandey and commanding others to take position to resist the army. The counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the incitement to resist army even if accepted, could not amount to any offence for when the prosecution had not led clear evidence that army was coming to take the charge of armoury of the P. A. C. under the direction of the Government, and the Assistant Commandant and Senior officers had not come forward to clarify the position of the army; the taking out of the arms from the armoury could be in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence of the Command. The contention of the counsel for the respondents appeared to us to be fallacious for it lay upon the respondents to show the existence of such circumstances wherein it could be justifiably inferred that it was in good faith as defined in Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code that the arms and ammunitions had been taken over. The respondents' counsel did invite my attention to the document Ex. Kha. 3 proved by Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukia to have been written by the District Magistrate but in our opinion it does not show at all that a prudent person of the level of the respondents in the circumstances of the case would have taken possession of the arms and ammunitions and the control of the XII Battalion P. A. C. after making such sentries non-functional who were not in agreement with him and ignoring his superiors. the plea of the counsel for the respondents that the respondents could justifiably take over the arms from the armoury when they had not the intention to retain them in exercise of their right of private defence is untenable. The conduct of the respondents in surrendering the arms could only be a mitigating factor while considering the question of sentence to be awarded against such of the respondents who were found guilty under Section 395, I.P.C. 49. The prosecution had alleged that the roof had been broken open and the doors and locks of the seven rooms wherein the arms and ammunitions and magazine had been kept had been broken. We think that the loss as a result of these acts although no specific evidence had been led in respect of its value would attract Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 50. We think that the loss as a result of these acts although no specific evidence had been led in respect of its value would attract Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 50. So far as the offences under Sections 121, 121-A and 122 of the I.P.C. and Rule 43 of the Defence of India Rules and Section 3 of the Police Force Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 are concerned, the counsel for the State conceded that they had not been committed and so we do not proceed to discuss them. 51. So far as the charges under Sections 6 (a), 6 (b) and 6 (c) of the U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1940 are concerned, we find tat only the offences under Sections 6 (b) and 6 (c) of the U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Act, 1940 had been committed for criminal force had been used and attempted in this case and there was also temporary abandonment and taking up of the assigned posts by the armed constables. The charge under Section 6 (a) could not be held to be established for it was conceded, as we find also that no evidence to substantiate the mutiny or sedition had been adduced. 52. We now proceed to examine generally whether the offence under Section 3 of the Police Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 had been committed or not. The Section 3 reads as follows : "Whoever intentionally causes or attempts to cause, or does any Act which he knows is likely to cause, disaffection towards the Government established by law in India amongst the members of a Police Force or induces or attempts to induce, or does any act which he knows is likely to induce, any member of a Police Force to withhold his services or to commit a breach of discipline, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both." There can be no doubt that in the instant case there was incitement to commit breach of discipline and services had not been rendered in the manner required. There has, thus, been establishment of the charge under Section 3 of the Act aforementioned. 53. There has, thus, been establishment of the charge under Section 3 of the Act aforementioned. 53. It only remains now to be seen whether there is enough evidence against each of the respondents for holding them guilty under Sections 148, 395, 427/149 of the I.P.C., 6 (b) and 6 (c) of the U.P., P. A. C. Act and Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922. The ocular witnesses examined in this case are all natural. They also cannot be held to be strangers. In respect of Krishna Gopal, respondent No. 1 we find on record the statements of Shiv Mangal Singh (P. W. 1), Balagiri (P. W. 3), Roop Kishore Srivastava (P. W. 6), Raghunandan Singh (P. W. 9), Ram Sunder Tewari (P. W. 10), Lalsa Singh (P. W. 12,) Punnan Mani Tripathi (P. W. 13) and Ramvir Singh (P. W. 17). He was said to have delivered speech inciting disobedience and there is also evidence against him that he had taken arms and distributed them also to others and not adhered to his duty but had abandoned it. In respect of Suresh Kumar we find on record the statements of Raghunandan Singh, Ram Sunder Tewari, Jagdish Narain Shukla and Punnan Mani Tripathi. In respect of Sewa Singh we find the testimony of Shiv Mangal Singh, Raghunandan Singh, Ram Sunder Tewari, Jagdish Narain Shukla and Lalsa Singh. In respect of Ashok Kumar Singh there are the statements of Balagiri, Raghunandan Singh, Ram Sunder Tewari, Jagdish Narain Shukla, Lalsa Singh and Punnan Mani Tripathi, In respect of Rajendra Singh there are the statements of Raghunandan Singh, Ram Sunder Tewari, Jagdish Narain Shukla and Lalsa Singh. In respect of Suresh Singh there are the statements of Shiv Mangal Singh, Balagiri, Raghunandan Singh, Jagdish Narain Shukla, Lalsa Singh and Punnan Mani Tripathi. In respect of Taluka Prasad there are the statements of Raghunandan Singh, Jagdish Narain Shukla, and Punnan Mani Tripathi. In respect of Zafar Ali, there are the statements of Raghunandan Singh, Ram Sunder Tewari, Jagdish Narain Shukla, Lalsa Singh and Punnan Mani Tripathi. In respect of Ram Karan Singh, there are the statements of Raghunandan Singh, Ram Sunder Tewari, Jagdish Narain Shukla and Lalsa Singh. In respect of Magan Bahadur Singh, there are the statements of Jagdish Narain Shukla and Purinan Mani Tripathi. In respect of Ram Karan Singh, there are the statements of Raghunandan Singh, Ram Sunder Tewari, Jagdish Narain Shukla and Lalsa Singh. In respect of Magan Bahadur Singh, there are the statements of Jagdish Narain Shukla and Purinan Mani Tripathi. In respect of Mohar Singh, there are the statements of Raghunandan Singh, Ram Sunder Tewari, and Jagdish Narain Shukla. The respondents Suresh Kumar, Sewa Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Rajendra Singh, Suresh Singh, Taluka Prasad, Zafar Ali, Ram Karan Singh, Magan Bahadur Singh and Mohar Singh were all stated to have taken rifles from the armoury and distributed the same. They also were alleged to have abandoned their assigned duties, disobeyed their superiors and taken position on the campus in an unauthorised manner as members of an unlawful assembly with the fire-arms. Samharoo Prasad and Ganga Prasad besides participating in the crime like the above others were pointed to have made opening in the roof and taken out rifles in pursuance of the common objective of the unlawful assembly for being distributed and dishonestly used. Sita Saran was said to have broken open the doors and the locks with hammer and also taken out and distributed rifles to the members of the unlawful assembly and abandoned his duties and disobeyed his superiors and taken position unlawfully on the campus. The respondents had examined Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla to prove that Taluka Prasad, Mohar Singh and Suresh Kumar had been admitted in the P. A. C. hospital on 22-5-1973 and 23-5-1973. In the cross-examination, he gave out that those suffering from dysentery were in a position to move about unless the dysentery happened to be very severe. He did not affirm on oath that he had any personal recollection of their condition. He had made statement on the basis of the entry in the hospital register. He did not give details of the illness of Mohar Singh when he pointed that he could not move about. On the other hand Raghunandan Prasad (P. W. 9), Ram Sunder Tewari (P. W. 10) and Jagdish Narain Shukla (P. W. 11, claimed to have seen him taking arms and distributing them to others. Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla did not state about the illness of Krishna Gopal. We feel that or. On the other hand Raghunandan Prasad (P. W. 9), Ram Sunder Tewari (P. W. 10) and Jagdish Narain Shukla (P. W. 11, claimed to have seen him taking arms and distributing them to others. Dr. Ram Sajiwan Shukla did not state about the illness of Krishna Gopal. We feel that or. the basis of the entries in the hospital register the nonparticipation in the crime in question of Suresh Kumar, Mohar Singh and Taluka Prasad and also Krishna Gopal even if he is shown unwell in the hospital register could not be upheld when there is no good reason at all to discard the testimony of Raghunandan Singh (P. W. 9), Ram Sunder Tewari (P. W. 10), Jagdish Narain Shukla (P. W. 11) and the other witnesses excepting Roop Kishore Srivastava who was said to have made some notes on his palm in an ellort to depose about the facts of the case. The Additional Sessions Judge has not at all given consideration to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses but discarded (hem perhaps on the flimsy ground that they were all P. A. C. personnel. The incidents had taken place on the campus of the P. A. C. and they were the best witnesses to testify about the same. The prosecution, we are satisfied, has established the charges under Sections 148, 395, 427/149, I. P. C , 6 (b) and 6 (c) of the U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary Act and Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act. 1922 against Krishna Gopal Singh, Suresh Kumar, Sewa Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Rajendra Singh, Suresh Singh, Sita Saran, Samharoo Prasad, Ganga Prasad, Taluka Prasad, Zafar Ali, Ram Karan Singh, Magan Bahadur Singh and Mohar Singh. It is only in respect of Qutubuddin that we feel that his acquittal should not be disturbed for he is entitled to the benefit of doubt as Jai Ram Yadav (P. W. 5) and Rama Shanker Singh (P. W 7) who were alleged to be on Sentry duty affirmed on oath that he had not done any act in pursuance of the objective of the unlawful assembly and in fact he too had been confined in the Guard Room by the other accused. The conviction of the respondents above mentioned under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 cannot be held to be bad for want of sanction by the District Magistrate as the same had been accorded before the framing of the charge. ORDER 54. The result is that this Government Appeal partly succeeds. The acquittal of Krishna Gopal Singh, Suresh Kumar, Sewa Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Rajendra Singh, Suresh Singh, Sita Saran, Samharoo Prasad, Ganga Prasad, Taluka Prasad, Zafar Ali, Ram Karan Singh, Magan Bahadur Singn and Mohan Singh under Sections 148, 395, 427 read with Section 149, I.P.C., 6 (b), 6 (c) of the U.P. P. A. C. Act and Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection Act, 1922 is set aside and they are each convicted for having committed offence under each of these Sections and are being sentenced to imprisonment already undergone on each of the above counts. Their bail bonds are discharged. They are not being sentenced to any further period of imprisonment or to pay fine as the incident had taken place more than seventeen years back and the judgment acquitting them too had been pronounced by the Additional Sessions Judge a long time back and further because during the incident no injury was caused to any one and the value of the arms and ammunitions which could not be recovered was not much and the service etc., of the respondents are going to be affected by this judgment. 55. The acquittal of Qutubuddin respondent is maintained. He is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are discharged. 56. The appeal as ordered earlier stands abated against Mahesh Chandra Pandey. 57. Before parting with this case, we would like to record our appreciation for the very thorough manner in which the appeal had been argued before us by Sri Gyaneshwar Bhutt, Additional Government Advocate, Counsel for the State.