JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, "Indian Penal Code."] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. He was further convicted under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 411 Indian Penal Code were set aside and the conviction under Section 394 Indian Penal Code was upheld. On the matter being taken to the High Court in revision, the conviction of the appellant under Section 394 Indian Penal Code. was upheld. Hence, this appeal by special leave. 3. We have been taken through the judgments of the three courts below wherefrom it appears that all the courts have concurrently found the appellant guilty under Section 394 Indian Penal Code. We do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for a period of about one year and prays that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded against the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed in part and the sentence awarded against the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal Dismissed