2. The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kama, vide its judgment and order dt. 17.10.2002, in Sessions Case No. 51/2002, convicted and sentenced five accused-appellants, namely, Saleem, Hakmuddin, Jacum, Naeem and Fakru @ Tahir under Sec. 399, IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, each; in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. And, under Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

3. Accused Saleem has preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 512/2006; accused Hakmuddin, Jacum and Naeem have preferred joint appeal being S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1465/2002; and, accused Fakru @ Tahir has preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1570/2002.

4. Shri N.A. Naqvi, the learned counsel for accused-appellants Saleem, Hakmuddin, Jacum and Naeem, and Shri Azad Ahmed, the learned counsel for accused-appellant Fakru @ Tahir, argued the appeals at length. They referred the statements of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence of the prosecution as well. But, during the course of arguments, in view of the statement of Ram Dayal (PW 1), Harish Chand (PW 2), both the members of police party, PW 5 Shivram Singh, who was the main witness of the prosecution, and PW 9 Prem Bahadur, did not press the appeals in merits.

5. So far as merits of the case are concerned, it is not necessary to discuss the facts of the case as the order of conviction has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants and rightly so.

6. I have examined the statements of the prosecution witnesses including the statements of PW 1 Ram Dayal, PW 2 Harish Chand, PW 5 Shivram Singh and PW 9 Prem Bahadur, and also the finding of the learned trial Court, and after considering the same I am satisfied that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused-appellants under Sec. 399, IPC, and under Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act, and learned counsel for accused-appellants are right in not pressing the appeal of the accused-appellants on merits.

7. So far as reduction of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, the learned counsel for appellants contended that accused Hakmuddin and Saleem have already remained in jail for about five years and ten-and-half month; accused Jacum and Fakru @ Tahir for about three years and eight months, therefore, their sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone by them.

8. So far as accused Naeem is concerned, it is contended that he also remained in jail for about two years and one months but he was released on bail by another Court without considering the conviction in the present case and thereafter he did not surrender himself, therefore, at present he is absconding.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial Court and contended that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is reasonab1e and be maintained as it.

10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both, the parties.

11. So far as sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court is concerned, it is relevant to mention that all the accused-persons have already served out two years sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court under Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act, but so far as the sentence of imprisonment awarded under Sec. 399, IPC, is concerned, this Section provides that whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. The ten years imprisonment is the maximum imprisonment and no minimum sentence of imprisonment and fine is provided in it.

12. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred the decision in the ca