JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal is arising out of the judgment and order dated 20.05.1986 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 63/85 by which he convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence under Section 392 I.PC. for 15 months R.I. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.07.1985 PW-3 Shyam Babu submitted a written report (Ex.P-1) which is registered as FIR No. (Ex.P-2) in Police Station Sadar Alwar in which it is stated that on 26.06.1985 at about 2.30 P.M. he came from Kishangarh to Alwar and when he reached to Kithare then he saw three young men came on Yazdi Motor Cycle. They stopped the motor cycle near to complainant bye-cycle and two persons came down from motor cycle and who drive the motor cycle, asked the complainant about the distance of Kishangarh? Then one person touched the pistol and another person touched the knife upon the complainant from back and they have snatched the watch and taken away Rs. 50/- from the complainant. The complainant also stated that his name is also mentioned in the watch. 3. Upon the said report the police registered the case for the offences mentioned hereinabove and started investigation. 4. After investigation police filed a challan before the Magistrate concerned and learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions being Section 392 readwith Section 397 I.P.C. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Alwar has framed the charges for the offences mentioned hereinabove and same were read over and explained to the accused-appellants who denied for the same and demanded for trial. 6. The prosecution in support of his case examined as many as 6 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. 7. Thereafter the statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. 8. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties vide the impugned judgment dated 20.05.1986 has convicted the accused appellant for the offences and sentences mentioned herein above. 9. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.05.1986 passed by the learned trial Court, the accused-appellants have preferred this appeal. 10. 8. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties vide the impugned judgment dated 20.05.1986 has convicted the accused appellant for the offences and sentences mentioned herein above. 9. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.05.1986 passed by the learned trial Court, the accused-appellants have preferred this appeal. 10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of the accused appellants has stated that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment but requested to the Court that the accused-appellants should be released on the period for which they have already undergone in confinement. He has further pointed out that accused-respondent No.1 Mojiram remained in judicial lock up from 31st of July 1985 to 30th of May, 1986 and accused-respondent No.2 and 3 remained in judicial lock up from 31.07.1985 to 20.05.1986, the sentence of all the accused-appellants has suspended by this Court 28.07.1986. All the accused-appellants remained in judicial lock up near about 12 months (having two days less). The accused- appellants is not a habitual offenders. Lastly, he has contended that the accused-appellants were facing the trial from the last several years which is tenatmounts to part of the punishment. The accused-appellants having marriageable children. The sentence awarded by the trial court is 15 months and they have already remained in judicial lock up as indicated above. 11. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case. 13. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case indicated hereinabove, I therefore, hold that accused-appellants have committed the offence under Section 392, hence the conviction of the accused-appellants is hereby maintained. 14. So far as the point of sentence of the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. is concerned the accused-appellants have remained in judicial lock up from 31.07.1985 to 28.7.1986 meaning thereby they have been in judicial lock up approximately one year (two days less) and I think that ends of justice would be met if the accused-appellants is sentenced for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. to the period for which they have already undergone in the confinement. 15. Thus, for the reasons, stated above this appeal is partly allowed. 15. Thus, for the reasons, stated above this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellants is maintained and they have accordingly convicted for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. but they have sentenced to the period already undergone by them in the confinement. The impugned judgment of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar (Rajasthan) dated 20.05.1986 stands modified accordingly. 16. The accused-appellants are on bail bond and they need not to surrender and they have been discharged from their bail bond.Appeal partly allowed. *******