JUDGMENT SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C.J. — This appeal is preferred by the State of Orissa against the judgment dated 28.2.1987 passed by the learned Sub-Judge -cum- Asst. Sessions Judge, Jeypore acquit¬ting the respondent from the charge under Section 395, I.P.C. in Sessions Case No.25 of 1986. 2. Some women were going to a Jatra at about 8 P.M. from their village together, when the respondent and some other ac¬cused numbering about 7/8 persons being armed with lathi etc. arrived at the scene of occurrence and snatched away from the women members some nose pins, bangles and gold chain. On the aforesaid allegations respondent Dhanapati Paraja and some others were prosecuted for commission of offence under Section 395, IPC. Some of the accused, who were tried along with Dhanapati were acquitted by the trial Court on 20.2.1987 under Section 232, CrPC. By the impugned judgment respondent Dhanapati Paraja was also acquitted by the trial Court. The said judgment of acquittal of respondent Dhanapati Paraja is challenged by the State of Orissa in this appeal. 3. Since this appeal was filed more than 19 years time has elapsed in the meantime. 4. On perusal of the record, learned Government Advocate pointed out that all the ornaments were recovered in course of investigation and respondent Dhanapati Paraja was in custody for about 15 days during the course of investigation. 5. As almost two decades' time has elapsed since the judgment of acquittal was passed in respect of the present re¬spondent Dhanapati Paraja and further because the ornaments stolen in course of the alleged dacoity have already been recov¬ered and the respondent has already served out custodial sentence of about 15 days during the course of investigation, I think it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment is restricted to the period during which the respondent was detained in custody and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 6. None is available for the respondent. Learned Govern¬ment Advocate has taken me through the evidence on record. I am satisfied that the respondent should not have been acquitted and there was sufficient evidence on record to convict him. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 6. None is available for the respondent. Learned Govern¬ment Advocate has taken me through the evidence on record. I am satisfied that the respondent should not have been acquitted and there was sufficient evidence on record to convict him. Accord¬ingly, I set aside the judgment of acquittal in respect of respondent Dhanapati Paraja and convict him under Section 395, IPC and sentence him to the period during which he was detained in custody and further sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand), and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appeal is thus allowed and disposed of. Appeal allowed.