JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard learned advocate for the respective appellant and learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. The appeal was filed by two appellants challenging the judgment passed by Sessions Court convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and directing the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. Five Hundred and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. Five Hundred and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. During pendency of the appeal the appellant No. 2 died and by the order dated 25th June, 2015 the appeal of the appellant No. 2 is disposed as abated. 3. Shri R.H. Raolani, advocate for the appellant No.1 has submitted that the Sessions Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, overlooking the provisions of Section 39 of the Arms Act which lay down that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3 without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate. In support of his submission, the learned advocate has relied on the judgment given in the case of Kamalsingh v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 218 . It is undisputed that the prosecution is launched against the appellant No.1 for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 without there being sanction of the District Magistrate. The learned A.P.P. has not been able to counter the submission made on behalf of the appellant No. 1 relying on the provisions of Section 39 of the Arms Act. In the facts of the case, it has to be held that the conviction of the appellant No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act is unsustainable and it has to be set aside. 4. In the facts of the case, it has to be held that the conviction of the appellant No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act is unsustainable and it has to be set aside. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant No. 1 has submitted that the charge against the appellant No. 1 regarding preparation to commit dacoity at the petrol pump has not been proved by the prosecution. The learned advocate has pointed out the conclusions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph No. 23 of the judgment that the evidence of Satish (P.W.1) and Rameshwar (P.W.2)-employees at the petrol pump show that the accused paid charges of the diesel taken at the petrol pump and these witnesses have not stated that the accused made any attempt to snatch the cash box at the petrol pump. It is submitted that the Sessions Court has acquitted the appellant No. 1 for the offence of the charge of committing offence punishable under Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code recording that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused made any attempt to commit the dacoity at the petrol pump. It is submitted that in view of the above conclusions, the conviction of the appellant No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable. The learned advocate for the appellant No.1 has alternatively submitted that the appellant No. 1 has not been involved in any other crime subsequently and has regularly abided by the orders passed by this Court and has not attempted to jump over the bail and is now working as security guard and considering these aspects, lenient view may be taken by modifying the quantum of sentence and holding that the imprisonment undergone by the appellant No. 1 is sufficient conviction for the offence committed by him. 5. Shri N.H. Joshi learned A.P.P. has submitted that the conclusions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded while acquitting the appellant No. 1 of the charge of commission for offence under Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be considered to examine the legality of the conclusions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge while holding the appellant No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned A.P.P. has pointed out the considerations in paragraph Nos. 17 and 22 of the judgment and has submitted that the conclusions of the learned additional Sessions Judge holding the appellant No. 1 guilty for commission of the offence punishable under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be faulted with. 6. With the assistance of the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned A.P.P., I have examined the record. I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with the case of the prosecution against the appellant No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code has properly appreciated the evidence on record and the conclusions of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard cannot be faulted with. I see no reason to interference with the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge insofar as the conviction under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. However, accepting the alternate submissions made on behalf of the appellant No.1, the quantum of the sentence imposed on the appellant No. 1 is required to be reduced. Hence, the following order:- (i) The conviction of the appellant No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is set aside. (ii) The conviction of the appellant No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. (iii) The sentence imposed on the appellant No. 1 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years is modified and it is directed that the appellant No. 1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period for which he had been in jail. (iv) The fine, imposed on the appellant and the directions that in default of payment of fine the appellant No.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months are maintained. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.