HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2442 of 1982 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.09.1982 passed by learned Special Judge, Budaun in Session Trial No. 15 of 1981, under Sections 399/402 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 1980, Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun by which appellants were convicted and sentenced for 5 years R.I. and under Section 25 Arms Act for a period of two years R.I. The sentences were to run concurrently. 3. The appellant no.1-Than Singh and appellant no.2-Raghunath were died during pendency of this appeal and appeal on their behalf was abated and dismissed. The appellant No.3-Birpal @ Sadhu is alive. 4. Facts in brief are that appellant was arrested by the police on 23.01.1080 while making preparation for committing dacoity at the house of Satya Prakash of village Nathuwa, Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun. After arrest, fard recovery was prepared and case was registered at the police station concerned as Case Crime No. 18 of 1981 under Sections 399/402 I.P.C. with Section 25 of the Arms Act. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant with other accused persons. 5. After compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C., the learned trial court framed the charges against the appellant, which was read over and explained to him, who denied and claimed for trial. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pankaj Satsangi, R.C. Kandpal, Tej Ram Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A., R.C.Kandpal Than Singh And Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) 6. The prosecution examined PW-1 Ahtram Ali Khan, PW-2 Dwarika Prasad, PW-3 Yugbir Singh and PW-4 Sub-Inspector R.B.S. Malik, who investigated the case and filed charge sheet. 7.After prosecution evidence, the statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded and no any evidence in defense was adduced by the appellant. 8. After hearing the prosecution as well as defense, learned trial court held guilty the appellant under Sections 399/402 I.P.C. with section 25 of the Arms Act and convicted him for a period of five years rigorous imprisonment and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences are to run concurrently by order dated 20.09.1982. 9. Being aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 20.09.1982, the present criminal appeal has been preferred. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case by the police. PW-1 and PW-2 though are public witnesses, but are not reliable since they were produced by the police and under the pressure of the police, they supported the prosecution version. PW-3 and PW-4 are arresting and investigating officer. There is no any other evidence on record to support the prosecution version. Recovery was also false, therefore, request to set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court and allow the appeal. He also argued that now the appellant has been released from jail after serving the sentences. 11. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that PW- 1 and PW-2 are public witnesses, who cannot be said to have spoken under the pressure of police, but the incident took place and appellant was arrested by the police while making preparation for committing dacoity at the house of Satya Prakash. There is no any error of fact and law in the judgment passed by the learned trial court and this appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 12. On perusal of trial court's record, it appears that on 23.01.1980 police already got information about the plan of appellant and other accused CRLA No. 2442 of 1982 2 persons for making preparation for committing dacoity on which they took PW-1 and PW-2 with them and then raided the spot where appellant and other accused persons were gathered. In the night, they were arrested by the police with fire arm. Fard recovery was also prepared and they were taken into custody and arms were taken in to possession, thereafter, first information report was lodged. PW-1 and PW-2 were examined before the learned trial court, who supported the prosecution version. During their cross-examination, nothing was brought to weaken their testimony and to show that they were under pressure of police and so made the statement before the court. PW-3 arresting officer has supported the prosecution version and also proved the papers prepared during the course of arrest, likewise PW-4 Sub Inspector, Investigating Officer has also supported the prosecution version and proved the investigation of the case. Learned trial court after considering the evidence on record, passed the judgment and order dated 20.09.1982. There appears no any error of fact and law in the order, therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court. 13. Since the appellant has served the sentence in jail and then released on bail as per report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun dated 19.08.2025 based on report of Jail Superintendent, Budaun, therefore, he need not surrender. 14. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed. 15. Trial court record be returned to the learned trial court. September 15, 2025 T.S. CRLA No. 2442 of 1982 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad