JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The appellant in this Jail Criminal Appeal faced trial for commission of offences under Sections 457/380/411 I.P.C. in S.P.E. Case No.14 of 1986 before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Spl. C.J.M. (C.B.I.)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. 2. The Criminal case was set in motion on the basis of an F.I.R. filed alleging that some unknown persons had stolen the idol of Lord Nursinghanath. The investigation, which was initial¬ly conducted by Paikamala P.S. was subsequently handed over to C.B.I. in view of the serious nature of offences. The Investigating Agency was able to arrest the appellant and others and also recover the idol. 3. In order to substantiate its case prosecution got examined as many as 28 witnesses and exhibited several documents. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Spl. C.J.M. (C.B.I.)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar after thread-bare discussion of the evidence, both oral and documentary, arrived at a conclusion that prosecution was able to prove the offences against the appellant and accordingly held the appellant guilty for commission of offences under Sections 457/380 I.P.C. and convicted him thereunder. The Court below sentenced him to under¬go R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo further R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 457 I.P.C. and four years’ R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for further period of six months for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. considering the sentiments of the local public. The Court below directed that both the sentences should run consecutively. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal from jail. 4. According to Mr. P.K. Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the appellant has already served imprisonment for more than nine years approximately. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Court below had not properly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions were ar¬rived basing upon surmises and conjectures keeping the sentiments of the public in general and it is a fit case where the convic¬tion should be set aside. 5. Mr. S. K. Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. on the other hand, strenuously submitted that the Court below had discussed the evidence in extenso and the conclusions arrived at are just, proper and in consonance with law and it is a fit case where the appeal should be dismissed in limine. 6. 5. Mr. S. K. Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. on the other hand, strenuously submitted that the Court below had discussed the evidence in extenso and the conclusions arrived at are just, proper and in consonance with law and it is a fit case where the appeal should be dismissed in limine. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. I have also perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution and other materials. Recovery of the idol and the evidence of wit¬nesses clearly lead to an irresistible conclusions that the appellant had committed the crime. The discussions made by the Court below are just, proper and in consonance with the materials available. The reasonings arrived at are not perverse. I am there¬fore not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, which is in accordance with the evidence, both oral and documen¬tary. However, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is in custody for quite some time and taking a liberal view, this Court without interfering with the sentence imposed directs that both the sentences shall run concurrently instead of consecutively. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the fine imposed by the Court below is also set aside. With the aforesaid modification of the sentence the Jail Criminal Appeal is disposed of. JCA disposed of.