Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of three criminal appeals preferred against the judgment and order of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur dated 1st May, 1989 in Sessions Case No. 8/86. The appellants have been convicted under sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for seven years under section 395 Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence has been awarded under section 412 Indian Penal Code. 2. In the night of 22/23.5.1985 Md. Matin was sitting in Maharana Munsi Hotel with other traders and truck drivers were taking their meal in the said hotel. The hotel was situated about 3 kms. from Bounsi Police Station. At about 1.30 A.M. about 20 to 25 persons armed with bomb, pistol, lathi and chura surrounded the hotel and ordered the people inside the hotel not to move. The dacoits started looting the persons present in the hotel on the point of pistol and other weapons. They snatched Rs. 2800/- from the pocket of the informant Md. Matin. The dacoits fled towards railway line. It so happened that Barahat Police and Bounsi Police arrived soon after the occurrence in the hotel and were informed about the dacoity. The police party and others followed the dacoits and succeeded in apprehending the dacoits. Stolen articles were recovered from the possession of each of the dacoits. All the appellants were arrested soon after the occurrence. 3. The defence of the appellants was that they were arrested by the police on suspicion while they had gone to attend the call of nature. The recovery of stolen articles was also denied. 4. The evidence is that the appellants were arrested near village Kakaria which is close to the village of the appellants. The appellants were not put on T.I. Parade. The stolen articles which are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellants were identified. There is overwhelming evidence that the appellants were arrested soon after the occurrence and stolen articles were recovered from their possession. It is true that the appellants were not put on T.I. Parade, but in view of the undisputed evidence that they were arrested soon after the dacoity along with stolen articles in the early hours of the morning, there is no illegality in the conviction of the appellants under section 395 I.P.C. 5. Mr. It is true that the appellants were not put on T.I. Parade, but in view of the undisputed evidence that they were arrested soon after the dacoity along with stolen articles in the early hours of the morning, there is no illegality in the conviction of the appellants under section 395 I.P.C. 5. Mr. Lala Kailash Behari Prasad, learned counsel for the State has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Man Singh V/s. State of M.P., 1993 BBCJ 213 . In this case, the Supreme Court held that the recovery of articles of dacoity after lapse of 3-4 months lead to the presumption that the person from whose possession stolen articles were recovered had committed dacoity. The accused persons in that case were convicted under section 412 I.P.C. In the present case, the appellants were arrested just after the dacoity was committed in the Hotel along with stolen articles. The Supreme Court, however, observed that merely because certain stolen articles were recovered, the accused cannot be held to be dacoits by invoking presumption unless there is recent possession. After lapse of 3 or 4 months presumption would not be imposed. 6. Here the case is otherwise. The appellants were arrested soon after the occurrence. Hence, conviction under section 395 I.P.C. was fully justified. The appellants have remained in custody for about four years. The case is of the year 1985. I, therefore, reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by each of the appellants. 7. These appeals are dismissed with above modification in sentences.