JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2004 and order of sentence dated 26.08.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Latehar, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2004, whereby the above named four appellants have been convicted by the learned Trial Court for offence committed and punishable under Sections 25 (1-B) a/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act and have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years, under Sections 25 (1-B) a/35 of the Arms Act and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month, and also rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sections 26/35 of the Arms Act with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. All these appellants have been acquitted under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the convicts Chhotu @ Abdul Wahab has absconded and his bail bond is cancelled and non-bailable warrant of arrest and process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against him to be executed by S.P. Latehar. One of the accused namely Md. Karva @ Md. Karua has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court by the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the self-recorded statement of the Officer-in-Charge, Chandwa Police Station, Amod Narayan Singh, alleging therein that, while he was in investigation of another case and returned to the police station, on 4.12.2003, he received a secret information at 15.00 hrs., that a Marshall vehicle, green in colour, having 5-6 criminals are coming with intention to commit some crime from Chandwa. Thereafter, the informant with other police personnel Jagdish Paswan, Assistant Sub-Inspector, constable no. 178, Ram Kumar Singh and home guard 10099, Indradeo Prasad Kushwaha, home guard no. 9283, Ram Nath Singh, constable no. 250, Ravindra Yadav and constable no. 239, Tarkeshwar Vidayarthi, all posted at Chandwa Police Station, went for verification and necessary action. The informant saw a Marshall vehicle, green in colour coming and the police force signaled to stop the vehicle. As soon as the private Marshall vehicle, bearing registration no. UP 78AE/ 4871 stopped, the accused persons became uneasy and tried to flee away but they were apprehended by the police. The informant saw a Marshall vehicle, green in colour coming and the police force signaled to stop the vehicle. As soon as the private Marshall vehicle, bearing registration no. UP 78AE/ 4871 stopped, the accused persons became uneasy and tried to flee away but they were apprehended by the police. All the apprehended accused persons were searched in presence of Md. Mohsin and Md. Tabrej, both sons of Md. Naseem, P.S. Latehar. From the possession of one of the accused persons, a country made, six round revolver was found loaded with four cartridges. The said accused disclosed his name, as Md. Rajaullah @ Billo and on enquiry he could not produce any valid documents for keeping such illegal arm and cartridges. Other accused persons disclosed their names, as Chhotu @ Wahab, Md. Asfaque, Md. Arif, Md. Shamim @ Shama and driver- Md. Karua, all residents of different villages under different police stations, within the district of Latehar. It is alleged, that one country made revolver and four live cartridge of 38 bore were found from the possession of Md. Rajaullah @ Billo. The informant has alleged that all accused persons were planning to commit some crime but apprehended and all the seized articles were seized by preparing a seizure list, which has been served upon Billo, who has put his signature on the same and one copy each has been served to the seizure witnesses. 3. On the basis of the self-recorded statement of the informant, police registered Chandwa P.S. Case No. 93 of 2003, dated 04.12.2003, under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 (1-B) a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act. 4. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet vide no. 21 of 2004, dated 31.01.2004, under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 (1-B) a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 05.02.2004 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 24.04.2004. 6. The charge has been framed on 21.05.2004, against all the six accused persons, under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 (1-B) a/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. 6. The charge has been framed on 21.05.2004, against all the six accused persons, under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 (1-B) a/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether nine witnesses and has also exhibited a number of documentary evidences, which have been marked as exhibits, up to Exhibit-8. 8. Amod Narayan Singh, informant and Officer-in-Charge of Chandwa Police Station, has been examined as P.W. 1, Shankar Prasad, constable no. 97, has been examined as P.W. 2, Triveni Singh, constable no. 95, has been examined as P.W. 3, Nathun Singh, constable no. 156, has been examined as P.W. 4, Jagdish Paswan, Assistant Sub-Inspector, has been examined as P.W. 5, Vijay Kr. Yadav, a cultivator, has been examined as P.W. 6, Md. Mohsin, driver of the police vehicle, has been examined as P.W. 7, Longinus Minz, Sergeant Major, has been examined as P.W. 8, Basant Baitha, Assistant Sub-Inspector, has been examined as P.W. 9. Entire F.I.R. has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, written statement of the informant, Amod Narayan Singh, has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 2, seizure list of revolver having four live catridges has been prove and marked as Exhibit- 3 and revolver has been proved and marked as material Exhibit I, four live cartridges have been proved and marked as material Exhibit-II, challans have been proved and marked as Exhibits- 4 and 4/1, signature of Md. Mohsin, on the seizure list, has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5, signature of Md. Tabrej, on the seizure list, has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 6, report of the sergeant Major has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7 and the sanction order, issued by the District Magistrate, has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 8. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused/appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.07.2004, to which they have stated their false implication in this case at the hands of police officers. 10. The defence has also examined altogether ten witnesses. Md. Israel has been examined as D.W. 1, Samsuddin has been examined as D.W. 2, Md. 10. The defence has also examined altogether ten witnesses. Md. Israel has been examined as D.W. 1, Samsuddin has been examined as D.W. 2, Md. Sarajuddin has been examined as D.W. 3, Kamrool Hoda has been examined as D.W. 4, Tavarak Hussain has been examined as D.W. 5, Maulana Abu Sayeed has been examined as D.W. 6, Khalil Ahmad has been examined as D.W. 7, Latif Mian has been examined as D.W. 8, Md. Mustaque has been examined as D.W. 9 and Md. Arif has been examined as D.W. 10. 11. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which has been assailed before this Hon’ble Court, in three criminal appeals by the four appellants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred the present three criminal appeals, which are being heard together. One of the accused Chhotu @ Abdul Wahab has absconded and his bail bond has been cancelled and non-bailable warrant of arrest and process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against him by the Trial Court to be executed by S.P. Latehar. 12. The Trial Court is directed to take steps for apprehending the accused Chhotu @ Abdul Wahab by taking all legal steps and initiate the proceeding against erring Police Officer for non-execution of the same by Superintendent of Police, Latehar. Superintendent of Police, Latehar is further directed to comply the order passed by the learned Trial Court and submit a report with regard to the execution of process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court immediately. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Kanchan Kumari assisted by Mrs. Manju Shripatra, Advocates in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1959 of 2004, Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocates in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1645 of 2004 and Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Amicus Curiae in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 649 of 2008. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. A.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocates in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1645 of 2004 and Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Amicus Curiae in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 649 of 2008. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants have further submitted, that only on the basis of the evidence of police personnel, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned Trial Court, which cannot be affirmed by this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants have further submitted, that no independent witness has been examined in this case and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the Learned Trial Court is only on the basis of evidence adduced by police personnels and perverse findings and contrary to the material available on record. Learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted, that the defence evidences have also not been appreciated by the learned Trial Court and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsels for the appellants have further submitted, that there is a contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the learned Trial Court has completely ignored the same and convicted the appellants wrongly under Sections 25 (1-B) a/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act but has rightly acquitted the appellants under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Kanchan Kumari has placed one judgment before this Hon’ble Court, as reported in AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1899 [:1974 PLJR (SC) 168, in case of Pabitar Singh v. The State of Bihar, referring to paragraph 6, where it has been held that: “It is abundantly clear from a perusal of the judgments of the courts below including the High Court that the case was neither tried nor examined from the point of view of the provisions contained in S. 35 of the Act. In the present case the quarter was admittedly in joint occupation of both the appellant and Ram Ashray Sharma. In the present case the quarter was admittedly in joint occupation of both the appellant and Ram Ashray Sharma. It is true that at the time of raid Ram Ashray Sharma was not present but the mere presence of the appellant was not sufficient to make him guilty of the offence unless the court could come to the conclusion that there was reason to believe that he was aware of the existence of the gun in the premises.” Learned Counsel for the appellants have further submitted, that the learned court below has completely committed an error in not appreciating the fact, that six round revolver along with four live cartridges has been recovered from the possession of Md. Rajaullahh @ Billo and other accused persons, who are appellants before this Court were not aware, that Rajaullah was having arms and as such, their conviction in the aid of Sections 25 (1-B) a/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as they have been acquitted of the charge punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Trial Court. 14. Heard, learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor in all the criminal appeals. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is based on the material available on record and the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants on well founded facts available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that in such type of cases, police officers are the only witnesses and the driver of the private vehicle, Md. Moshin (P.W. 7) has proved his signature on the seizure list, which has been admitted by the appellants during trial. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants as reported in AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1899 [:1974 PLJR (SC) 168, in case of Pabitar Singh v. The State of Bihar, (supra), is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in that case Ram Ashray Sharma was not present in the house but in the present case, where all the four accused/appellants were coming from some place to attend a marriage and one of the accused persons namely Md. Rajaullah @ Billo was having a country made six round revolver along with four loaded cartridges and on the arrival of the police, they tried to flee away meaning thereby that other companion have knowledge about the same and as such, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants is totally different from the facts of the present case and as such, the same is not applicable and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants, who were coming from same place to attend a marriage by hiring a vehicle and as such, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 25 (1-B) a/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act has rightly been passed by the learned Trial Court against other accused along with Md. Rajaullah @ Billo. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that in the aforesaid judgment, Ram Ashray Sharma was not present in the house, whereas in the present case all the four accused persons were present in the vehicle, when the police made a signal to stop the vehicle and the accused persons tried to flee away and on search, from one of the accused persons, a country made pistol has been recovered and if it is so, that the revolver was recovered from Rajaullah and the other co-accused persons have no knowledge, that Rajaullah has kept fire arm with him, then why the other co-accused persons were fleeing away from the vehicle. This shows that they were having knowledge that Rajaullah has kept fire arm and that is the reason, they have tried to flee away. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the evidence of the police witnesses are consistent and there is no contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses nor the appellants could show any evidence, which shows the contradictions in the prosecution evidence and as such, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 25 (1-B) a/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the defence witnesses have given different statements, which has nothing to say about innocence of the appellants. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and question no. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the defence witnesses have given different statements, which has nothing to say about innocence of the appellants. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and question no. 4 was placed before them, that a country made six round revolver with four live cartridges was recovered from joint possession of all the accused persons, for which they have not provided any valid paper, to which the accused persons have only replied, that it is not correct but they have not given satisfactory reply nor they have stated, that they want to adduce evidence in support of their innocence. The learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that from perusal of the evidence of D.W. 1 to D.W. 10, it appears, that the defence witnesses have only stated, that they have been invited for attending a marriage, for which they have been given an invitation card, they do not have any knowledge, that from whose possession, the police has recovered the revolver with live cartridges, rather the defence has not stated anything with respect to innocence of the appellants and as such, the defence witnesses/evidence will not come in support of the appellants to prove their innocence. 15. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Kanchan Kumari assisted by Mrs. Manju Shripatra, Advocates in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1959 of 2004, Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocates in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1645 of 2004 and Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Amicus Curiae in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 649 of 2008 and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor in all the criminal appeals, from perusal of the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of nine Prosecution witnesses, Exhibits and statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the evidence of ten defence witnesses, this Court is of the opinion, that the prosecution witnesses are consistent to the prosecution case, the defence has not produced any valid paper to show, that they have right to keep a fire arm with them, rather in contraventions to Section 3 of the Arms Act, that the appellant Md. Rajaullah @ Billo has kept a country made six round revolver with four live cartridges. Rajaullah @ Billo has kept a country made six round revolver with four live cartridges. From mere reading the various sections of the Arms Act, which reads as follows: “25. Punishment for certain offences – (1-B) Whoever – (a) Acquires, has in his possession or carries any fire-arm or ammunition in contravention of section 3 [26. Secret contraventions.(1) Whoever does any act in contravention of any of the provisions of section 3, 4, 10 or 12 in such manner as to indicate an intention that such act may not be known to any public servant or to any person employed or working upon a railway, aircraft, vessel, vehicle or any other means of conveyance, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and also with fine. (2) Whoever does nay act in contravention of any of the provisions of section 5, 6, 7 or 11 in such manner as to indicate an intention that such act may not be known to any public servant or to any person employed or working upon a railway, aircraft, vessel, vehicle or any other means of conveyance, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years and also with fine. (3) Whoever on any search being made under Section 22 conceals or attempts to conceal any arms or ammunition, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine. 35. Criminal responsibility of persons in occupation of premises in certain case. – Where any arms or ammunition in respect of which any offence under this Act has been or is being committed are or is found in any premises, vehicle or other place in the joint occupation or under the joint control of several persons, each of such persons in respect of whom there is reason to believe that he was aware of the existence of the arms or ammunition in the premises, vehicle or other place shall, unless the contrary is proved, be liable for that offence in the same manner as if it has been or is being committed by him alone.” 16. From perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 Amod Narayan Singh, who is the informant of the case, it is apparent that a country made six round revolver was found, loaded with four live cartridges, from the joint possession of the appellants. This witness (P.W. 1) has proved, the seizure list, written report and registration of the case, in his hand-writing and signature and the formal F.I.R. in hand writing of Assistant Sub-Inspector, Basant Baitha with signature of P.W. 1, himself, as Exhibits-1, 2 and 3 respectively. The seized country made revolver has been proved and marked as material Exhibit I. Four live cartridge as material Exhibit- II. This witness has further stated that challans have been proved and marked as Exhibits- 4 and 4/1. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence, but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve his testimony nor any suggestion was given with respect to the seizure or false implication of the appellants, for some ulterior motive. Shankar Prasad, constable no. 97 has been examined as P.W. 2. This witness has claimed to identify the accused persons, after seeing them, who have been represented. This witness has stated during cross-examination, that they have apprehended the accused from green Marshall vehicle, who were trying to flee and after being apprehended they were searched and from possession of one of the accused persons namely, Md. Rajaullah @ Billo, one country made revolver with four live cartridges has been recovered. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. Triveni Singh has been examined as P.W. 3. This witness has also supported the prosecution case and he has been cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case, rather he has supported the prosecution case in totalilty. Nathun Singh, constable No. 156, has been examined as P.W. 4. This witness has also supported the prosecution case and nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case, during cross-examination. The P.W. 4 has supported the prosecution case, in consonance with other witnesses. Jagdish Paswan, A.S.I., has been examined as P.W. 5. Nathun Singh, constable No. 156, has been examined as P.W. 4. This witness has also supported the prosecution case and nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case, during cross-examination. The P.W. 4 has supported the prosecution case, in consonance with other witnesses. Jagdish Paswan, A.S.I., has been examined as P.W. 5. This witness has also supported the prosecution case and has categorically stated during cross-examination, that he has not heard, that other accused persons were saying, that Billo has illegal revolver with him and they have no knowledge about the same, otherwise they could have asked Billo to get down from the vehicle and as such, the prosecution has established that all the accused persons have knowledge about possession of illegal arms by Md. Rajaullah @ Billo, and as such, they are coming under purview of Section 35 of the Arms Act which has been kept in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act. Vijay Kumar Yadav (P.W. 6) has supported the half of the prosecution case with regard to search made by the police by stopping the green Marshall vehicle but subsequently, he has been declared hostile by the prosecution, as he has submitted, that no illegal revolver has been recovered in his presence. Md. Mohsin, the private driver of the police vehicle, has been examined as P.W. 7. He has also proved his signature and signature of his brother Tabrej, on the seizure list, which have been marked as Exhibits- 5 and 6 respectively but subsequently, they have been declared hostile by the prosecution, as this witness has stated, that his statement has not been recorded by the police. This court has considered the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, who have been declared hostile and cautiously examined their evidence. From the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, it is proved that the police has stopped a vehicle by giving signal and from the said vehicle, some persons were apprehended and P.W. 7, Md. Mohsin has categorically, stated and identified his signature and the signature of his brother, on the seizure list, which have been proved and marked as Exhibits- 5 and 6, nowhere this witness has stated, that the police has obtained his signature, on a blank sheet of paper. Mohsin has categorically, stated and identified his signature and the signature of his brother, on the seizure list, which have been proved and marked as Exhibits- 5 and 6, nowhere this witness has stated, that the police has obtained his signature, on a blank sheet of paper. This proves that signature of P.W. 7 and his brother’s signature, is correct and genuine on seizure list although he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Longinus Minz, Sergeant Major has been examined as P.W. 8, this witness has stated that he has examined the six round revolver having butt length of 2.7", by body 4" and length of barrel 3", on the barrel in English Japan has been written. The revolver is in workable condition and having four cartridges on which 380 KF- 2 has been written at the bottom. The witness has stated, that one cartridge was alive, which is harmful for human life and other three cartridge were missed fire. Those have been examined and they have been returned to the police. The signature of the Sergeant Major on the Blastic report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 7. This witness has been cross-examined but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. Basant Baitha has been examined as P.W. 9. He is the investigating officer of the case and has found the case to be true during investigation and has categorically stated, that a six round revolver with four live cartridges have been recovered, as the accused persons were having planning of committing a dacoity. The Marshall vehicle was taken on hire for attending a marriage. This witness has further stated, that seized materials were sent before the Sergeant Major for examination, which has been examined and returned to the police. This witness has further stated, that owner of the vehicle has not been made witness in this case. The defence has cross-examined him but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. 17. This witness has further stated, that seized materials were sent before the Sergeant Major for examination, which has been examined and returned to the police. This witness has further stated, that owner of the vehicle has not been made witness in this case. The defence has cross-examined him but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. 17. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants as reported in AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1899 [:1974 PLJR (SC) 168 in case of Pabitar Singh v. The State of Bihar (supra), is not applicable in the present case, as in that case both the accused persons were not present together, but in the present case all these four appellants were present on the vehicle and as soon as the police officer has given signal to stop the vehicle, they tried to flee away but ultimately apprehended by the police, meaning thereby they had the knowledge, that one of the associates is keeping an illegal arm and that is the reason they were trying to flee away from the vehicle and as such, the judgment cited by the appellants is not applicable in the present case having different facts. 18. After closure of the prosecution evidence the appellants have been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.07.2004 and thereafter ten defence witnesses have been examined and their categorical statement, is that they were invited in a marriage by way of invitation card and they have no knowledge that, why the police has arrested the accused persons, as they have no knowledge about the recovery of fire arm from one of them. The defence evidence is not going to help the appellants in any manner to prove their false implication by the police. 19. On the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that, these appellants have been rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court under Sections 25 (1-B) a/35 and 26/35 of the Arms Act, as these appellants were in joint possession of the arm and they have hired a vehicle to go to a marriage ceremony and they tried to flee away, when police tried to stop the vehicle, which shows that these appellants had joint knowledge of the illegal arm carried by Md. Rajaullah @ Billo and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been rightly passed by the learned Trial Court, which is being affirmed and upheld by this Hon’ble Court. 20. In the result, the common impugned judgment of conviction, dated 24.08.2004 and order of sentence, dated 26.08.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Latehar, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2004, in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No. 93 of 2003, consequent to G. R. Case No. 438 of 2003, in all three present criminal appeals, is hereby affirmed and upheld by dismissing all the three Criminal Appeals. 21. The appellants, who are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court forthwith to serve out the sentence, as passed by the learned Trial Court. The period already undergone by the appellants during the trial or appeal shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 22. Before parting with, it is necessary to mention that Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Amicus Curiae has assisted the Court by giving valuable submissions on behalf of the appellant. 23. The Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay the remuneration as per the law to Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned Amicus Curiae within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 24. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.