JUDGMENT Kundan Singh, J. - Criminal Appeal No. 2311 of 1979 has been filed by Ram Harakh, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 2406 of 1979 has been preferred by Paras against the one and same judgment passed in Session Trial No. 198 of 1978, by Sri S. S. Srivastava, the then VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, on 26.7.1979, whereby he has convicted appellant Ram Harakh under Section 379/511, 1. P. C. and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment, and the appellant Paras under Section 379 read with Section 511, 1. P. C. and sentenced him also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Paras was further convicted under Section 25-A of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently. Since both the appeals have been preferred against one and the same judgment, they are being disposed of together by this common order. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Debi Saran Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Khorabar Constables Ram Ujagir Pandey and Vijai Narain Dixit and some Home Guards were on patrol duty on 27.2.1978 at about 8.20 P.M. on the Railway Line to check the theft of telephone wires. When the party reached near Tura Bridge, the members of the patrol party noticed torch light near pole No. 494/4. Then they proceeded towards that pole and on reaching there they found one man climbed on the pole, trying to cut the telephone wire, and some other men standing near that pole. The Sub-Inspector Debi Singh flashed his torch towards that pole whereupon one person standing near the pole fired a shot towards the patrolling party but they escaped narrowly. The patrolling party arrested two members of that gang, namely Paras and Ram Harakh, the two appellants in the above appeals. After their arrest and interrogation by the Sub-Inspector, they disclosed the names of their other companions as Hamid, Lalji, Ram Briksh and Pearey. On their search, one iron Plass was recovered from the possession of Ram Harakh appellant, and one country made pistol, two cartridges-one inside the barrel and another in his pocket and one iron saw were recovered from the possession of Paras appellant. 3. On their search, one iron Plass was recovered from the possession of Ram Harakh appellant, and one country made pistol, two cartridges-one inside the barrel and another in his pocket and one iron saw were recovered from the possession of Paras appellant. 3. The accused-appellants were then sent to jail and a case was registered against the accused at P. S. Khorabar, under Sections 379, 511 and 397, I.P.C. After investigation the 'Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 379, 511 and 397. I. P.C. and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act against Paras-accused appellant, only. 4. The accused-appellants denied. the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During trial the prosecution examined Debi Saran, Sub-Inspector, and Ram Ujagir Pandey Constable as witnesses of the factum of incident and Raghunath Prasad (P.W. 3), judicial Assistant, was examined to prove the sanction by the District Magistrate for prosecuting Paras appellant under - Section 25-A of the Indian Arms Act. 6. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 315 Cr.P.C. by the learned Trial Judge. In his statement Paras appellant had stated that he was arrested from his house and the police interrogated him about some dacoity, while appellant Ram Harakh had deposed that he was also arrested from his house and was beaten by the Police while inquiring about some dacoity and when he could not disclose about that dacoity, he was challaned and this false case has been foisted on him. Ram Harakh appellant also examined the Jail Doctor, Sri S. N. Shukla, to prove his injury report. He was medically examined by Dr. O. N. Gupta in jail on 2-3-1978 and he found two contusions on the legs of the accused-appellant Ram Harakh. 7. The learned trial Judge after going through the entire evidence on record hold both the appellants guilty of the offences with which they have been charged with and accordingly he convicted and sentenced both of them as aforesaid. 8. The learned counsel for both the appellants half heartedly challenged the arrest of the appellants and the recovery of the incriminating articles from their possession, as mentioned above. 8. The learned counsel for both the appellants half heartedly challenged the arrest of the appellants and the recovery of the incriminating articles from their possession, as mentioned above. However, they argued on the question of sentence with the aid that except the two police personnel not a single public witness has come forward to support the prosecution version and further the investigation has also not been above board. According to the learned counsel appearing for Paras appellant, he was arrested on 27-2-78 and he has remained in jail for more than five months during his trial and after conviction by the learned Additional Sessions fudge, while, according to the counsel of Ram Harakh, his client has remained in fail for more than 2-months before the trial and after his conviction by the learned Trial Judge. They also pointedly argued that there was no cut of the wire and the charge under Section 397 I.P.C., was not found to be proved and for mere possession of a country made pistol appellant Paras has remained in tails quite a few months. It was also emphasised that none of the appellants is a previous convict and their antecedents are not bad. 9. I have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the record carefully and I find that the prosecution has been successful in bringing home guilt to both the appellants under Sections 379/511 I. P.C. and also under Section 25-A of the Arms Act against Paras Appellant. So far as question of sentence is concerned, the incident in the present case occurred about 14 years back and it would not be proper to relegate them to Jail after such a long time. I feel that ends of justice would be adequately served if the conviction of both Paras and Ram Naresh appellants on all the counts with which they have been charged with is maintained but their sentences, who have already been in Jail for more than five months and 2Z months, respectively, in connection with the offences charged with, are reduced to the period already undergone. 10. Accordingly, both the appeals succeed and are allowed in part. 10. Accordingly, both the appeals succeed and are allowed in part. The conviction of both the appellants Ram Harakh and Paras for the offences with which they have been charged with is hereby upheld and confirmed but their sentences as awarded by the learned trial Judge are reduced to the period already undergone by each of them. They are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 11. On 1.4.1991 this Court had cancelled the bail of both the appellants and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take them into custody for non-appearance of anybody to argue the appeals on their behalf. If in pursuance of that order they have been taken into custody by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, they shall be let off forthwith if their detention is not required in connection with any other offence.