Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order of conviction and sentence and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. Appellants in both the appeals have been convicted for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment fur live years and four years respectively. They have further been convicted for the offence under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. Appellants No. 1 to 3 in Cr. Appeal No. 205 of 1989 have further been convicted for the offence under Sections 25-A and 26 of the Arms Act and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and three years respectively under each count. Appellant No. 4 has further been convicted for the offence under Section 35 of the Arms Act but no separate sentence has been awarded under the aforesaid Sections. Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 230 of 1989 has further been convicted for the offence under Sections 25-A and 26 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year respectively under each count. The sentence were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 13.10.1980. On information of one Bal Roop Sharnta, Shakti Roadways Bus was surrounded by the raiding party and on search country-made pistol, gun and cartridges were recovered from the possession of the appellants. On recovery seizure-list was prepared and on the statement of P.W. 12 First Information Report was lodged. He himself investigated the cases and submitted charge-sheet. On receipt of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. The Trial Court convicted the appellants, as indicated above. 5. The defence of the appellants was total denial of allegation. They have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the police. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined 13 witnesses out of whom P.W. 11 was tendered. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 are formal witnesses, who have proved certain documents. They have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the police. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined 13 witnesses out of whom P.W. 11 was tendered. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 are formal witnesses, who have proved certain documents. The rest of the witnesses are official. They have supported the prosecution case and stated that on information, raid was conducted and recovery of arms and ammunition was made. 7. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is nothing on the record to show that the appellants were making preparation or had made preparation for committing dacoity. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention herein that the witnesses have, no doubt, stated with regard to recovery of the arms and ammunition from the possession of the appellants but there is nothing on the record to establish that they were making preparation or had made preparation for committing dacoity or their assemblage was for the purpose of committing dacoity. 8. It is well established rule of law that for conviction for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to be establish that they were making preparation or had made preparation for committing dacoity and their assemblage was for committing dacoity. Merely possession is not sufficient to hold guilty for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code as purpose may be to commit any other offence. 9. Thus, on consideration the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. Similarly, there is nothing on the record to show that the articles recovered were stolen property in any other criminal case. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. 10. Thus, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Sections 399, 402 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. 11. So far as conviction of the appellants for the offence under Sections 25-A and 26 of the Arms Act is concerned, it is evident from the evidence of the witnesses that they have supported the prosecution case. 11. So far as conviction of the appellants for the offence under Sections 25-A and 26 of the Arms Act is concerned, it is evident from the evidence of the witnesses that they have supported the prosecution case. They have stated in their evidence that arms and ammunition were recovered from the possession of the appellants. Therefore, I dont find anything wrong in the trial Court judgment with regard to conviction under the aforesaid Sections. However, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that sentence awarded to the appellants is severe. It was informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 205 of 1989 have remained in jail for about six months and appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 230 of 1989 remained in jail for about three years. 12. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the year 1980 i.e. about 19 years ago. After such a long time, sending the appellants in jail would not be in the interest of justice nor any useful purpose would be served. However, their conviction under Sections 25-A and 26 of the Arms Act is affirmed but there sentence under the aforesaid sections is reduced to the period already undergone. 13. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed with modification, as indicated above. 14. The appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.