PALOK BASU, J. Sarvan, son of Parasuram and Som Nath, son of Phool Chandra stand convicted under Sections 457 and 380, I. P. C. and sentenced to nine months R. I. and Rs. 500/- each on each count by the Magistrate which sentence has been upheld by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in appeal, hence these revisions by these two aplicants. 2. Sarvans revision was admitted on the question of sentence only on 3-7-1990 while the revision filed by the applicant Som Nath was also admitted but on 12-7-1990. Both the revisions have been directed to the Connected and that is why this matter has come up for final disposal. 3. Sri B. N. Rai and Sri A. C. Nigam, learned Counsel for the two applicants respectively have been heard at length and Sri Surendra Singh, learned Counsel has been heard on behalf of the State. Since the revisions were admitted on the question of sentence, the lower court records was not summoned as the matters stand fully discussed in the two judgments of the courts below. 4. It transpires that on 13-8-1984 at about 7 p. m. both the applicants were ap prehended by the two contables while running away with the stolen articles which were round from their possession. Sarvan was having a watch and Rs. 520/- in cash and Som Nath was having a gents Dhoti a Baniyan and a steel bowl. Learned Counsel rightly argued that since spot arrest theory propounded by the prosecution has been accepted by both the courts the matter cannot be arguej on merits any more. However, both the learned Counsel greatly emphasised that no u. eful purpose would be served in sending the ap plicants to jail. 5. In this connection as regards the question of sentence the attention of the court was drawn to the fact that both the applicants had undergone a few days sentence after they were convicted by the trial court and remained as undertrial prisoners when they were initially arrested for couple of days. It was further pointed out that about a week or ten days have undergone by each one of them after they were convicted by the courts below and then bailed out by this Courts order. In effect, therefore, about a fortnights sentence has been undergone by each of the applicants. 6. The sum of Rs. It was further pointed out that about a week or ten days have undergone by each one of them after they were convicted by the courts below and then bailed out by this Courts order. In effect, therefore, about a fortnights sentence has been undergone by each of the applicants. 6. The sum of Rs. 500/- each as fine on two counts, i. e. Rs. 1000/- payable by each of the applicants was not stayed and that must have been deposited by now. 7. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is true that no useful purpose would be served if the applicants are again directed to undergo remaining part of their substantive sentence particularly because they have already undergone about a fortnight sentence and the matter is about eight years old and, therefore, more than sufficient time has elapsed between the date of the incident and this date. Consequently, the period already undergone and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- as imposed by the lower courts appears to be appropriate sentence under both Sections 457 and 380, I. P. C. On each of the applicants. 8. Consequently these revision applications are dismissed with the observation that the conviction of the applicants Sarvan and Somnath are upheld under Sections 457 and 380, I. P. C. but their sentences are reduced to the period already undergone and Rs. 500/-each on each count as imposed by the courts below is maintained. The applicants are on bail. They need not surrender, their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Appeal dismissed. .