KUNDAN SINGH, J. This appeal has been preferred by Akhlesh Kumar alias Naresh appellant against the judgment and order dated 21-11-1979, passed by Sri. H. C. Rastogi, the then 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 25 (1 ) (a) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment in S. T. No. 545 of 1977. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the P. A C. Battalion 24, Moradabad was on duty in Meerut City for the maintenance of law and order. Madan Pal Singh Constable attached to Police out-post Budhana Gate, Police Station Kotwali, Meerut, along with seven constables of a Section of P. A. C. Battalion aforesaid, was on patrol duty in Mohalla Gudri Bazar, Meerut city. At 11. 15 p. m. on the day of occurrence i. e. 31-10-1973, the patrolling party saw that some persons were chasing a man shouting catch hold-catch hold, he is a dacoit. The informant, Madan Pal Singh, saw a person running with a revolver in his hand. That person was chased by the informant and the constables of P. A. C. as well. As soon as Madan Pal Singh made an attempt to apprehend him near the Mohalla Kachayan the accused fired a shot on the informant but luckily he escaped narrowly. That person was chased by the police personnel and near the houses of washermen in Mohall Khandak he was arrested by the informant and other constables m the presence of witnesses. during the arrest, some nee ssary injuries were inflicted on the person of the accused. The revolver which was in the hand of the accused was snatched. It was bore having revolving magazine of five cartridge. The revolver was taken into custody. It contained two discharged cartridges in its revolving magazine. The accused along with recovered articles was taken to the police station where an F. 1. R. was lodged by Madan Pal Singh constable at Police Station Kotwali, Meerut at 11-38 p. m. on 31-10-1975, The accused was lodged in the Police lock-up and the revolver was also deposited and a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-2) was prepared. The revolver and the discharged cartridges were sealed. The arrest and the recovery was said to have been witnessed by public witnesses Pyare Lal, Hera Kashmiri, Fariduddin and Ishtiaq. 3. Ka-2) was prepared. The revolver and the discharged cartridges were sealed. The arrest and the recovery was said to have been witnessed by public witnesses Pyare Lal, Hera Kashmiri, Fariduddin and Ishtiaq. 3. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Rajpal Singh Sub-Inspector-Il of Police Station Kotwali, Meerut. He recorded the statement of Madan Pal Singh informant, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a site plan (Ext. Ka-4 ). He also recorded the statement of other witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. and reported the matter to the District Magis trate for sanction of prosecution of the accused under Section 25, Arms Act. The sanction was accorded by the District Magistrate vide Ext-Ka-6. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. 4. The prosecution examined five witnesses in all. Out of them, Madan Pal Singh (P. W. 1), Pyare Lal (P. W. 2) and Sher Singh (P. W. 4) are the witnesses of the factum of incident. P. W. 3 Jagat Singh was examined to prove the Chick report and G. D. entries regarding revovery of revolver and arrest of the accused. Rajpal Singh S. I. II investigated the case and sub mitted the charge sheet against the accused appellant. 5. The accused denied the prosecution case and claimed to be tried. He, in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , stated that the informant Madan Pal Singh was a close friend of Sri Niwas alias Kalua s/o Jagan, resident of his own village who was posted as a police constable at Bulandshahr. The criminal litigation was pending between him on one hand and Jagan on the other. He has been falsely involved in the present case in collusion with Sriniwas s/o Jagan. He further stated that he was a student of M. A. Previous and was taken his studies in N. A. S. Degree College, Meerut. Constable Madan Pal Singh arrested him near Koke-Ki Tatti in Mohalla Begum Pul at about 8-00 or 8-30 p. m. on the day of oecurrence. Jagan had moved the bail application of his son under Section 307, I. P. C. which was rejected on the day of oecurrence and on the same day, Jagan and his son were also present in Meerut. He has also filed a copy of anticipatory bail application of Jagan and his son Mool Chand, dated 2-10- 1975, Ext. Jagan had moved the bail application of his son under Section 307, I. P. C. which was rejected on the day of oecurrence and on the same day, Jagan and his son were also present in Meerut. He has also filed a copy of anticipatory bail application of Jagan and his son Mool Chand, dated 2-10- 1975, Ext. Kha-1, and copy of the order dated 31-10-1975 (Ext, Kha-2), passed by learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the aforesaid bail application. 6. The trial judge on consideration of the evidence on record held the appellant not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307, I. P. C. and he accordingly acquitted him of that charge but found him guilty of the offence under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act and hence he convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of P. W. 1 Madan Pal Singh constable does not find corroboration from the evidence of any independent witness who were allegedly chasing the appellant and shouting to arrest the dacoit, according to the learned counsel, P. W. 2 Pyare Lal, who was a Rickshaw Puller, was a pocket witness of the police as he admitted to have appeared as a witness for police in 2 or 3 more cases, hence no reliance can be placed on his statement. As regards P. W. 4 Sher Singh, Head Constable of P. A. C. 24 Battalion he contended that his statement is not substantive piece of evidence and it cannot be relied upon against the appellant because during the cross-examination the witness stated that now he cannot say definitely mat n was the accused who fired the shot and from whom the revolver was recovered as several years have passed off when the incident took place and the person standing in dock may be thie same person who arrested at the spot. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, went through the record of the case and heard the learned counsel for the State as well. 9. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, went through the record of the case and heard the learned counsel for the State as well. 9. The prosecution story as revealed by P. W. 1 Madan Pal Singh Con stable is that while he was in the company of other constables of P. A. C. in Mohalla Gudri Bazar, one person came running from sarrafa Bazar, having a naked revolver in his right nand, some public persons were chasing him and shouting to catch him saying that he was a dacoit. When Madan Pal made an attempt to arrest him, that very person fired a shot towards him but provi dentially he escaped narrowly and he over-powered him with the help of his fellow constables and the witnesses, in Mohalla Khandak, near the houses of washermen and the country-made revolver was snatched from that person, who disclosed his name as Akhlesh Kumar alias Naresh. The accused along with the illicit fire-arm recovered from his possession was then taken to police station where an F. I. R. was lodged and the appellant was lodged in the police lock-up and the country-made revolver was deposited at the Thana. The recovery memo was prepared and the recovered articles were sealed. 10. P. W. 2 Pyare Lal testified the incident and stated that accused was arrested in his presence and a country-made revolver was recovered from his possession. No doubt, he has stated that he did not see the actual firing by the accused but he admitted that the police constable who was in the company of P. A. C. constables, produced the revolver at the police station informing that it is the same revolver which was recovered from the possession of the accused. 11. if bus the evidence of P. W. 1 Madan Pal Singh finds corroboration from the evidence of P. W. 2 Pyare Lai, Rickshaw puller, who reached the place of occurrence where the accused was over-powered and the country-made revolver was recovered from his possession. His evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he admitted that he had appeared as witness for police in two or three other cases. His evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he admitted that he had appeared as witness for police in two or three other cases. The defence has not filed any document to show that this witness Pyare Lal had given evidence in any case for the police, and hence he could not be dubbed as a pocket witness of the police on this ground alone. So far as P. W. 4 Sher Singh is concerned, no doubt, he had stated that he could not say definitely that it was the accused who fired the shot and from whose possession the country-made revolver was recovered but he admitted that he overheard the noise coming from the side of Sharrafa Bazar to catch the person running as he was a dacoit and the person so running was having a naked revolver in his hand. The witness also admitted that the accused was running towards Mohalla Kecheyau and he was being followed by public persons and that person fired a shot towards Madan Pal Singh constable when he was to arrest him but luckily he escaped narrowly, Madan Pal Singh and P. A. C. constables followed him and he was overpower ed in Mohalla Khandak, thereafter that person was taken to the police station Kotwali, and that the recovered country-niade revolver was also deposited there but due to lapse of time he could not say that the accused was the same person who was arrested at the spot. From the tenor of evidence of P. W. 4 Sher Singh, it is clear that some public persons had chased a miscreant shout ing catch hold the miscreant and after a chase he was arrested and from his possession a revolver was recovered. The person who was arrested on the spot and from whose possession revolver was recovered was the appellant Akhlesh Kumar alias Naresh and that fact was proved by P, W. 1 and P. W. 2. Thus the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. 12. I do not find any substance in the defence version that the appel lant has been falsely implicated by Madan Pal Singh, Constable (P. W. 1 ). Thus the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. 12. I do not find any substance in the defence version that the appel lant has been falsely implicated by Madan Pal Singh, Constable (P. W. 1 ). Had the appellant been prosecuted falsely in the present case as he was expected to have reported his false implication to the higher authorities, but the appellant did not report the matter to any authority that he has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of Jagan or his son Sriniwas nor has he led any evidence that Madan Lal Singh Sriniwas nor has he led any evidence that Madan Pal Singh (P. W. 1) had any connection with Sri Niwas s/o Jagan. The suggestion put by the defence to Madan Pal Singh constable has been denied by him that he knew any Jagan or his son, residents of village Chandsara and that the accused has been involved in the present case at the instance of Jagan or his son and the fact that the accused was arrested at 8-30 p. m. on 31- 10-1975 at Begum Pul. 13. On the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is not a previous convict and he had suffered a lot of mental agony during last 18 years. He also relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1973 SC 2288 and urged that the sentence awarded by the court below be reduced to the period already undergone. 14. I have given my anxious thought to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is true that the appellant is not previous convict and no bad antecedent of the appellant has been brought on the record. The appellant himself stated to be a student of M. A. Previous at the time of incident. The possession of the arm in question has not been shown to be inspired by any sinister purpose and there was no suggestion that the arm was likely to be used for any anti-social activity, I do not think that it would be proper to send the appellant again behind the bar after a period of 18 years to serve out the remaining period of sentence as awarded by court below. 15. 15. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I feel that it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and a sentence of fine of Rs. 500 in addition is imposed on the appellant and in default of payment of fine, the appellant is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 16. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds in part. The conviction of the appellant is maintained but his sentence is reduced to the period already under gone and a fine of Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only) is imposed, which shall be payable within two months from today. In case of default in payment of fine, he shall undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. Appeal partly allowed. .