JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - This revision has been admitted on the question of sentence on 3.7.1990. 2. In support of this revision Km. Naheed Moonis, learned counsel for the applicant, has been heard at length and Sri Jagdish Tiwari is representing the cause of the State. Km. Moonis has filed a questionnaire today indicating that the applicant Tauheed Mian has been in jail in connection with this case right from the date of his arrest which was Mid-June, 1989. From a perusal of the judgment of the appellate court it appears that the applicant had not been released on bail during the pendency of the appeal and he was in confinement when the appellate judgment was pronounced on 31.3.1990. 3. The facts are that the applicant himself admitted having removed truck bearing registration No. USN-5129 belonging to one Fayyaz Khan and also admitted its recovery at his behest on 14.6.1989. The Magistrate had insisted upon proof of the case. Consequently Fayyaz Khan (PW 1) was examined and two other witnesses of fact were also examined whereas Inspector Sukhpal Singh was examined as PW 4. The Magistrate by his order dated 20.1.1990 convicted the applicant under Section 411 Indian Penal Code having held that the prosecution case was fully proved and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Tauheed Mian took an appeal to the Sessions Judge which has been dismissed on 31.3.1990 by the Sessions Judge Rampur, hence this revision. It was rightly argued that the applicant having already undergone more than one and a half years sentence by his being in detention all though the trial and the appeal and having remained in jail in spite of the bail order of this Court dated 3.7.1990, the sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone. The learned counsel again rightly did not take the court through the merits of the finding relating to the conviction of the applicant under Section 411 Indian Penal Code because there was voluntary admission of the applicant recorded in the judgments of the two courts below. 4. The learned counsel again rightly did not take the court through the merits of the finding relating to the conviction of the applicant under Section 411 Indian Penal Code because there was voluntary admission of the applicant recorded in the judgments of the two courts below. 4. From a perusal of the judgment of the appellate court (Sessions Judge) it appears that the applicant has been convicted in some other case which gave rise to a criminal appeal which had been heard by the Sessions Judge arising out of some other case in which the applicant stood convicted by the Magistrate's order dated 20.1.1990. It is not clear as to whether the applicant stood acquitted or convicted in the said case. However, it is made clear that this order will govern only case No. 191 of 1989 which became the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1990 before the Sessions Judge wherein the conviction and sentence orders were recorded by the two courts on 20.1.1990 and 31.3.1990 respectively. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion this revision fails in so far as the conviction of the applicant under Section 411 Indian Penal Code is concerned. The said conviction is maintained. However, the sentence of the applicant Tauheed Mian under Section 411 Indian Penal Code is reduced from two years' R.I. to the period already undergone. 6. With these observations this revision is dismissed. A certified copy of this order shall be furnished to the learned Counsel for the applicant on payment of usual charges within three days. The office will dispatch information within a week from today, if not earlier.