K. L. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of Cr. Appeal No. 249183 (Madhav v. State of M. P.), which also arises from the judgment dated 19-5-1983 delivered by the Turd A. S. J. Indore in S. T. No. 44/83. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution at about 8. 15 p. m. on 8-7-1981, on the Vespa Scooter driven by Shabbir, who is dead, the appellants had reached near the partnership shop of Vijay Agrawal (P. W. 10) situate at Khatipura, Indore. Then they entered the shop. Subhash Suhash Ashok (P. W. 1) Dilipkumar (P. W. 9) and Gowardhan (P. W. 13) who were the employees in the shop were also present. They robbed Vijay Agrawal (P. W. 10) of Rs. 7,010/-and his Seiko watch. They also robbed Suhash (P. W. 1) and Dilipkumar (P. W. 9) of Titus and Ricko watches. They also removed ligarater packets from the shop. In committing robbery, the appellant Madhav made use of knife and the other appellant made use of Pistol. The miscreants also robbed Suhash (P. W. 1 ). Vijay Agrawal (P. W. 1o) and Dilip kumar (P. W. 9) of the money they had in their pockets. Vijay Agrawal (P. W. 1o) immediately reported the occurrence to the Police. ( 3 ) A crime was registered (vide Ex. P. 14) and investigation was set afoot. ( 4 ) IN the occurrence Suhash (P. W. 1) had sustained knife injury. He was sent for medical examination. Dr. A. S. Vishnar (P. W. 8) examined him at 9. 30 p. m. on 8-7-1981 and found that he had knife injury. ( 5 ) THE appellant Murli, while in police custody, furnished information on 12-8-1981 (vide Ex. P/6) that wrist watches had been kept at the residence of the other appellant Madhav. In consequence of that information, at the instance of the appellant Murli, Titus watch kept in an attache at the residence of the appellant Madhav was seized vide Ex. P/1o. ( 6 ) SIMILARLY in consequence of the information furnished by the appellant Madhav on 12-8-1981 (vide Ex. P/7) Seiko watch was seized at his instance (vide Ex. P/9 ). ( 7 ) ON the same day i. e. 12-8-1981 a pistol and a live cartridge were also seized from Madhav (vide Ex. P. 8 ). P/1o. ( 6 ) SIMILARLY in consequence of the information furnished by the appellant Madhav on 12-8-1981 (vide Ex. P/7) Seiko watch was seized at his instance (vide Ex. P/9 ). ( 7 ) ON the same day i. e. 12-8-1981 a pistol and a live cartridge were also seized from Madhav (vide Ex. P. 8 ). ( 8 ) IN the test identification conducted on 26-8-1981 Dilipkumar (P. W. 9) and Vijay Agrawal (P. W. 10) identified the appellants Murli and Madhav (vide Ex. P. 12 and P/13 ). In the test identification Suhash, Dilipkumar and Vijay Agrawal identified the respective watches of which they were robbed. The test identification was conducted by Executive Magistrate N. K. Upadhayay. (P. W. 11 ). ( 9 ) ON examining the pistol and cartridge, head constable Nathuram (P. W. 4) opined that seized pistol was in working order and the cartridge was a live one. ( 10 ) DISTRICT Magistrates sanction for prosecuting the appellant Madhav under the Arms Act was obtained (Vide Ex. P. 15 ). ( 11 ) AT the conclusion of the investigation the appellants were prosecuted. ( 12 ) THE defence of the appellants was one of denial. ( 13 ) AT the conclusion of the trial each of the appellants was convicted u/s 3921397 and 5. 452 of the I. P. C. and was sentenced respectively to R. I. for 7 years and 3 years. In addition the appellant Madhav was convicted u/s. 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and was sentenced to R. I. for one year. It was directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. ( 14 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the evidence on record is discrepant and the convictions of the appellants are not sustainable. ( 15 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the State is that not only that the stolen watches were seized in consequence of the information furnished by the appellants, but they were also identified in test-identification and the material on record furnished a firm, foundation for the convictions ( 16 ) THE point for consideration is whether the appeals deserve to be allowed. ( 17 ) FROM the evidence of Subhash (P. W. 1), Dilipkumar (P. W. 9) Vijay Agrawal (P. W. 1o) and Govardhan (P. W. 13) it is clear that robbery was committed as stated in the promptly lodged F. I. R. and the miscreants had decamped with currency notes and watches. ( 18 ) FROM the prosecution evidence it is also established that in consequence of information furnished by the appellants, stolen watches were recovered. The watches were identification and also during evidence at the trial. The evidence of Dilipkumar (P. W. 9) is that he had identified the appellants in test-identification. He had also identified them during his evidence at the trial ( 19 ) ON a careful consideration of the prosecution evidence I find that the conclusion of the learned Trial Judge that the appellants are connected with the crime is on firm foundation. In the ultimate analysis I hold that the appeals deserve be dismissed. ( 20 ) IN the result the appeals fail and are dismissed. The convictions of the appellants and the sentences passed against them are maintained. The appellant Murli is in Jail, he shall serve out the sentences imposed on him. The other appellant Madhav is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled He shall surrender to his bail bonds and shall serve out the sentences imposed on him. Appeals dismissed. .