JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.-Prosecution case initiated on fardbeyan of one Manoj Kumar, in brief, is that on 09.07.1996 he boarded Satyendra Bus at Piro Bazar at about 7.00 pm. He was involved in business of Gud (the cake of molasses) from Shahjanhanpur (U.P.). For that purpose, he was carrying Rs. 1.5 lakhs cash with him. In the way, Ravindra Singh, appellant conductor of the case demanded fare of the bus. He was keeping Rs. 700.00-800.00 in his pocket which was seen by the conductor of the bus. At Bikram all the staffs of the bus including appellants, driver, conductor and khalasi got down from the bus remained out of the bus for a period of half an hour. Driver was plying the bus in slow speed and stopping the same place to place. Further his statement is that when the bus reached near Darihat, 5 culprits from the bus showed country made pistols to the passengers of the bus and directed bus driver to drive the bus towards Chhai Road and thereafter, started looting articles, money of the passengers, informants cash of Rs. 1,05,000/- and wrist watch of the passengers. 2. Appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 280 of 1999 are believed for having their hand in the incident. It is further stated that bus was delayed for half an hour to invite dacoits in the bus and driver of the bus handed over a torch to dacoits to commit loot. Appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 280 of 1999 are further alleged for watching the money concealed by the informant after two seats and that also was taken. Appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 323 of 1999 appeared in the case in course of investigation when he was caught and put on T.I. parade and identified, cash of Rs. 35,000/- and several watches recovered from his possession too. 3. After concluding the trial, appellants along with others have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 395 of the I.P.C. by passing the impugned order validity of which has been questioned through filing these appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 280 of 1999 and amicus curiae in Cr. Appeal No. 323 of 1999 preferred to press the appeals on the point of sentence only on the similar ground that there was no previous conviction of appellants and for appellants of Cr. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 280 of 1999 and amicus curiae in Cr. Appeal No. 323 of 1999 preferred to press the appeals on the point of sentence only on the similar ground that there was no previous conviction of appellants and for appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 280 of 1999, it is submitted that suspicion more is working in the case for their involvement but some of the circumstance was there to favour them also as on the point of fire arms only the bus was taken towards another way and all staffs of the bus including appellants went to Police Station along with passengers. For appellants of Cr. Appellants No. 280 of 1999, it is said that appellant No.1 remained in custody from 15.07.1996 to 06.01.1997 and appellant No.2 from 15.07.1996 to 12.12.1996 and both from 01.10.1999 to 11.10.1999 that for appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 323 of 1999, it is said that he remained in custody in course of trial from 24.07.1996 to 03.12.1999. 5. In discussed suggested circumstance. I agree with the submission of learned counsel and learned amicus curiae for appellant that the period undergone by the appellants may be taken sufficient towards punishment. 6. In the result, both appeals are partly allowed on the point of sentence only that (sentence) is modified and minimized to the period already undergone by the appellants and conviction held by the 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Case No. 305 of 2007/1997 of 1997 is affirmed. 7. All the appellants of both Cr. Appeal shall stand discharged from their liabilities of respective bail bonds. 8. Let copy of first page and last page of this Judgment be handed over to the learned amicus curiae and a copy of this Judgment along with lower Court records be sent to the trial Court immediately. Appeals partly allowed.