Judgment Sabina, J. 1. Vide this order, the above-mentioned two criminal appeals bearing Nos. 519-SB of 2001 and 703-SB of 2001 are being disposed of by a common order, as these have arisen out of the same judgment dated 11.4.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. 2. Appellants were convicted for an offence under Section 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge Sonepat vide judgment dated 11.4.2001. Vide order of even date, accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each under Section 395 IPC and accused-appellant-Rajender only was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 412 IPC. Hence, the present appeals by the appellants. 3. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned appellate Court in para 2 of the order, read as under :- "The facts of the prosecution case with the short compass are that on 21.10.1998 Assistant Sub. Inspector (ASI) Mohinder Singh was present at Sisana checking point along with other police officials. In the mean time, complainant Sukhbir Singh came there and got his statement Ex. PA recorded to the effect that he was plying vehicle make TATA Sumo as a taxi. He used to park the said taxi near Palace Cinema, Rohtak. On that day at about 10.00a.m. three young boys aged around 20/23 years with small beard and wearing pent and shirt came to him and hired his taxi to got Sisana for Rs. 450/-. When they reached near double Canal Bohar one of them got his vehicle stopped under the pretext of urinating. In the mean time two more young boys wearing pent and shirt and of normal stature came there and shook hands with him. Thereafter all the five boys sat in the vehicle and asked to go to Sisana. Initially they came to bus stop of village Sisana and thereafter they started for village Garhi Sisana. Whey they were near Gooshala (cowshed) on Rohtak, road they asked to him to stop his vehicle. Moment he stopped his TATA Sumo one of the boys sitting by his side pushed him out and sat on the driving seat. Thereafter, they ran away from the spot along with his vehicle. Whey they were near Gooshala (cowshed) on Rohtak, road they asked to him to stop his vehicle. Moment he stopped his TATA Sumo one of the boys sitting by his side pushed him out and sat on the driving seat. Thereafter, they ran away from the spot along with his vehicle. ASI Mohinder Singh made his endorsement Ex. PA/1 thereupon and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case. On the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was registered by MHC Zile Singh. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PB was also prepared. Later on accused were arrested in this case and were interrogated by the police. During interrogation accused Ashok made disclosurement Ex. PC regarding the occurrence. He also stated about the involvement of accused Vinod, Vikky, Dalbir, Sumesh @ Meshu. He also stated that vehicle was sold to accused Rajinder for Rs. 30,000/- and they distributed the money among themselves." 4. Learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of arguments, have not challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 395and 412 IPC but have submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants may be reduced to already undergone by them. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant had failed to identify the appellants during trial. Keeping in view above facts, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants to already undergone by them. 5. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 395, 412 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua the imprisonment of the appellants is reduced to already undergone by them. Fine, as imposed by the trial Court, be deposited within three months from today, if not already deposited, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. Appeals disposed of.