Judgment :- Kanchan Chakraborty, J: 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2010/22.06.2010, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Sealdah, 24 Parganas (South) in S.T. No. 06(06)/2007 arising out of Phoolbagan Police Station Case No. 182 of 2006 dated 10.12.2006 under section 395/397 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 25/27 Arms Act and thereby sentencing the appellants to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- for committing offence 397 IPC and R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for committing offence under section 395 of IPC with a direction that both the sentences would run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case before the learned Trail Court is stated below, in brief: 3. There was metal scrap godown of Ruby Trading Company at 56, Canal Street, Kolkata 54 owned by one Ashok Agarwal. One Dilip Gupta took that godown on rent. Lalmohan Paswan was an employee of Ashok Agarwal and was the custodian of the keys of the godown. He, Mohanta Guchhait and Jagabandhu Chhatoi used to sleep in the godown. On 9/10.12.2006, at about 01.30 hours; they heard some odd sounds and woke up. They found three persons standing infront of them aiming guns towards their heads. The miscreants demanded keys of the godowns from Lal Mohan who replied that the keys were in the custody of the owner of the godown. The godown was made of asbestos shed. The miscreants broke open the lock of the godown and entered therein after putting Lal Mohan Paswan, Mahanto and Jagabandhu in a room of the godown under lock and key. Chhotelal Yadav, of driver one Tata Sumo car was subsequently lodged in the said room by the miscreants. The miscreants took away gunny bags containing metal scraps and some bundle of pipes, loaded the bags and pipes in the Tata Sumo car of Chhotelal Yadav and left that place by that car. In the morning, after being rescued by the local people, Lal Mohan informed Dilip Gupta about the incident. Dilip Gupta reached there and thereafter he together with Lal Mohan and Mohanto went to Phoolbagan police station and lodged one F.I.R. on the basis of statement of Lal Mohan. Phoolbagan police station case no. In the morning, after being rescued by the local people, Lal Mohan informed Dilip Gupta about the incident. Dilip Gupta reached there and thereafter he together with Lal Mohan and Mohanto went to Phoolbagan police station and lodged one F.I.R. on the basis of statement of Lal Mohan. Phoolbagan police station case no. 182 of 2006 dated 10.12.2006 was started against four unknown miscreants under section 392 and 397 for committing rubbery and attempt to cause death or grievous heart in committing rubbery and under section 25/26 Arms Act for possessing and using fire arms by illegal means. 4. The case was investigated into and in course of investigation, the Investigation Oofficer could arrest 1) Ashis Saha @ Milan, 2) Deb Saha and 3) Nata Mondal @ Narayan Mondal as suspects. Pursuant to the statement of suspect of Ashis Saha @ Milan, one fire arm, i.e., improvised revolver with live cartridge were recovered from his residence at 17, Kankurganchi Road, Kol- 54. Pursuant to the statement of Nata @ Narayan Mondal and Deb Saha, police also recovered booty i.e. pipes and scraps from a tile shed shop room at Tatultala , Barasat and residential room of Deb Saha at 4, Basanti Colony, Ultodanga. The Tata Sumo car used by the miscreants was also seized from road side in front of 8B, Jaggadyan Lane, Calcutta 54. All the three suspects were placed in T.I. Parade and were identified by Lal Mohan Paswan, Jagabandhu, Mahanta and Chhotelal. The investigation ended in a charge-sheet against the above named suspects who were arrayed to face charges under section 395 and 396 IPC read with Section 25/26 Arms Act. They pleaded not guilty, and as a consequence, the trial commenced. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses in all. The F.I.R., Seizure lists, reports of T.I. Parade, report of arms expert, statements of the accused leading to the discovery were admitted into evidence along with other documents and were marked exhibit on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Judge upon appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary, found that the prosecution brought home the charges lebelled against the accused persons and accordingly recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is impugned in this appeal. while admitting the appeal, this Court issued rule upon the accused/appellants as to why the sentence imposed by the learned Court shall not be enhanced. 5. Mr. while admitting the appeal, this Court issued rule upon the accused/appellants as to why the sentence imposed by the learned Court shall not be enhanced. 5. Mr. Debabrata Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. and no explanation was offered by the prosecution as to why such delay was caused. He contended further that the place of occurrence has not been clearly specified and, as such, there is doubt as to the actual place of occurrence. His further contention was that the seizure of metal scraps, pipes and arms has not also been proved beyond reasonable doubt. There was no independent witness to support said seizure of those articles. This apart, he contended, the seized articles were not identified by the witnesses in course of trial. He also raised question as to fairness in conducting the T.I. Parade of the appellants. He contended that in course of cross-examination of witnesses as well as in course of examination of the appellants under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the defense made out a case that the suspects were shown to the witnesses while they were in police custody. The reports of T.I.Parade indicate that the suspects/appellants mentioned that fact to the Magistrate who conducted the T.I.Parade. He contended further that the learned Court failed to take into consideration the above factors and recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 6. The Asraf Ali, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state of west Bengal contended that the judgement impugned is based on cogent, reliable and sufficient evidence. The fact that booty and arms as well as the offending vehicles were recovered pursuant to the statements leading to the discovery has been proved. Seizure of those articles has also been established by sufficient and satisfactory evidence. The appellants were identified in the T.I.Parade as well as in course of trial. Therefore, there is no scope for this Court to interfere into the findings of the learned Trial Court. 7. We have carefully gone through the entire evidence, oral and documentary, considered by the learned Trial Court. The F.I.R. was lodged on 10.12.2006 at 08.40 hours on the basis of statement of Lal Mohan Paswan (exhibit 25). Therefore, there is no scope for this Court to interfere into the findings of the learned Trial Court. 7. We have carefully gone through the entire evidence, oral and documentary, considered by the learned Trial Court. The F.I.R. was lodged on 10.12.2006 at 08.40 hours on the basis of statement of Lal Mohan Paswan (exhibit 25). The incident alleged had taken place in the mid night at about 01.30 hours. According to the prosecution case Lal Mohan, Mahanto, Jagabandhu and Chhotelal were kept in a room by the miscreants at the point of gun and the room was locked from outside. They could inform Dilip Gupta (P.W. 5) only in the morning. Dilip Gupta stated that in the morning at about 7.45 A.M on 10.12.2006, he received the information and asked one Shamim to go to the spot immediately with him. They went to the spot and thereafter went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. If so, in our view, there was no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. which is fatal for the prosecution. In fact the evidence of P.W. 1 and 5, if considered minutely, it can well be found that the F.I.R. was lodged immediately after receiving the information by Dilip Gupta and there was no delay in lodging the F.I.R. So, we do not accept the proposition of Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that there was inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. and that fact created any doubt in the prosecution case. 8. According to the F.I.R., the incident had taken place at 56, Canel Circular Road, Kol- 54, where the godowns were situated. Our attention was drawn to the deposition of P.W. 5 who stated that the godowns were situated at Jagodyan Lane. We have meticulously examined the exhibit 20 and 21, i.e., the sketch maps of the place of occurrence and found that Jagodyan Lane and Jagodyan by Lane are originated from the 56, Canal Circular Road by the side of which the godowns of Rubi Trading Company were situated. To be stated preciously, the asbestos sheds godown where the incident had taken place was actually situated by the side of the open space at 56, Canal Circular Road. The location of the place of occurrence is such that it can be said to be situated at 56, Canel Circular Road or Jagodyan Lane as well. To be stated preciously, the asbestos sheds godown where the incident had taken place was actually situated by the side of the open space at 56, Canal Circular Road. The location of the place of occurrence is such that it can be said to be situated at 56, Canel Circular Road or Jagodyan Lane as well. There is, apparently, no confusion as to the place of occurrence as questioned by Mr. Banerjee. The fact that there was no signboard of the Rubi Trading Company in the godown at 56, Canel Circular Road is of no consequence because it was hired by P.W. 5. Again, nowhere within the length and breath of the prosecution case it has been stated that there was any such signboard of Rubi Trading Company in the godown of 56 Canel Circular Road. So, non-mentioning of such signboard in the Sketch map appears to be immaterial. We do not like to put any importance on this point raised by Mr. Banerjee. 9. This is a case where three unknown miscreants entered into the godown by breaking the lock and putting the guards and a driver into a room at the point of gun and locked them from outside. They took away 6 bags of metal scraps and twenty bundles of copper pipes. They used a Tata Sumo car which was parked by the side of godown. The Tata Sumo car was recovered and seized under a seizure list (exhibit 14) in presence of Jagabandhu Chhatoi. Twenty bundles of copper pipes and six plustic bags containing copper and brass scraps were seized from one tile shed shop room belonging to Sk. Ali Hossian of Digbaria, Tatultala at Barasat. The seizure was done in presence of Sudhir Kumar Mondal (P.W. 19) and Sk. Anwar Hossian under seizure list which was marked as exhibit 17. It has been argued by Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant that seizure has not been proved by sufficient and satisfactory evidence as the independent witnesses did not support the seizure. We have carefully gone through the evidence recorded by the trial Court and found that the seizure of booty as well as revolver and empty case of cartridge has been established by sufficient and satisfactory evidence. The P.W. 6 Sk. We have carefully gone through the evidence recorded by the trial Court and found that the seizure of booty as well as revolver and empty case of cartridge has been established by sufficient and satisfactory evidence. The P.W. 6 Sk. Ali Hossian is the man having the godown at Digbaria, Tatultala, Madhamgram where on 11.12.2006, appellant Nata Mondal and another person brought 20 bundles of copper pipes and six plastic bags containing scraps by a Tata Sumo car. They proposed the P.W. 6 to purchase the said materials. The P.W. 6 has stated categorically that he could not purchase the said materials as he had no money at that time and on their request, however, he kept those materials in his shop. He stated also that he was assured that they would come back on the next date. They did not turn up. On 14.2.2007, the police officials accompanied by appellant Nata Mondal and another man came to his shop and seized the copper pipes and bags containing scrap form his go down at the instance of those two persons. He identified his signature in the seizure list which was prepared in his presence. He also identified the appellant Nata Mondal as well as the material exhibit VIII. The evidence of P.W. 6 was supported by S.I. Biswanath Ray of Ultadanga Police station. He had been to the godown of the P.W. 6 and was present at the time the booty were recovered and seized under the seizure list in his presence. In our opinion, no further evidence is required for the prosecution to establish the fact of seizure of the booty from the godown of the P.W. 6. As far as seizure of the revolver and empty case of cartridge (material exhibit IX and X) is concerned we find that P.W. 16 Babi Singh witnessed the seizure of the revolver and empty case of cartridge from the house of appellant Ashis Saha. He has no enimity whatsoever with the appellant. His evidence is clear enough to establish that at the instance of appellant Ashis, the material exhibit IX and X were recovered and seized from his dwelling house. His evidence was supported by P.W. 17 S.I. Sukdev Banerjee. We find that the appellant Ashis brought out the arms and ammunition from the wooden rack which were wrapped with one T Shirt. His evidence was supported by P.W. 17 S.I. Sukdev Banerjee. We find that the appellant Ashis brought out the arms and ammunition from the wooden rack which were wrapped with one T Shirt. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 6, 11,19,16 and 17. We find that the learned Trial Court appraised the entire evidence meticulously and came to a right conclusion that the seizure of booty was established by sufficient and satisfactory evidence. We share the view of the learned Court in this respect. 10. Mr. Banerjee contended that the appellant were shown to the witnesses before the T.I.P. Therefore, the identification of the appellant in the T.I.P is of no value in the eye of law. We have gone through the reports of the T.I.P which were marked exhibit 52 series. It is found therefrom that the appellants stated to the Magistrate who conducted the T.I.P that they were shown to the witnesses beforehand. That report of the appellants to the Magistrate was made after holding of T.I.P especially when they were identified by the witnesses but not before the T.I.P was held. This is very common plea taken by the accused of a dacoity case. The appellants were identified in course of trial also by the witnesses. The Magistrate who conducted the T.I.P. stated that the report was made by the suspects after holding of the T.I.P. Such being the fact, we are unable to accept the plea of the appellants that they were shown to the witnesses before the T.I.P. was held by the I.O. There is no evidence to the effect that the witnesses were taken to police station lock up and the appellants were shown to them before the T.I.P was held. So, we do not accept the pro-position of Mr. Banerjee. 11. Upon consideration of the entire evidence as well as the judgment impugned we are of opinion that the learned Court made no error in finding the appellants guilty of offences punishable under section 395/397/34 of the IPC and under section 25(1b) (a) of Arms Act. We do not like to upset the order of conviction under challenge. It is affirmed. 12. We find that the appellants are in custody on and from 12.3.2007 in connection with this case. It appears that they have suffered substantial portion of the sentence. We do not like to upset the order of conviction under challenge. It is affirmed. 12. We find that the appellants are in custody on and from 12.3.2007 in connection with this case. It appears that they have suffered substantial portion of the sentence. Considering the age of the appellants and considering the fact that they have already suffered almost six years and four months imprisonment, i.e., substantial portion of the sentence, we find it expedient to reduce the sentence to the period they have already undergone. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal affirming the order of conviction but reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period appellants have already undergone. 13. Let a copy of this judgment along with the records be sent to the concerned Court below without delay. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the judgment, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities. I agree.