JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 30.9.2005 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Tonk in Sessions Case No. 71/2004 whereby he convicted the accused appellant for the offences under Section 395, 458, 342 IPC and sentenced him as under:- Under Section 395 IPC: To undergo 10 years' Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months' simple imprisonment; Under Section 458 IPC: To undergo 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment; Under Section 342 IPC: To undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to fur ther undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.9.2004, the complainant Gopal Das P.W-14 lodged a report with police station, Peeplu, District Tonk stating therein that when he was sleeping in the mid night of 17-18.9.2004 at about 1.00 A.M five persons came at the temple of Baida Balaji at village Borkhandi and looted money and other articles from the temple. 3. On his information the police registered FIR Exhibit 26 (chalked FIR Ex.P.27) and started investigation and the accused persons were arrested. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against five accused persons before the Court of Sessions Judge, Tonk who transferred the case to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Tonk, who framed charges for the offence under Section 395, 458 & 342 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons who denied the same and claimed trial. The statement of accused appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. One witness was produced in defence. The learned trial court after hearing both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the trial court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 5. One witness was produced in defence. The learned trial court after hearing both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated above. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the trial court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused appellant has requested to this Court that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of trial court, but he is only requesting to this Court that the sentence of the appellant should be reduced for the period already undergone by him in confinement. 6. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor has controverted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also scanned the the judgment of the trial court and I find that the appellant was rightly convicted by the trial court for the offences under Section 395, 458 & 342 IPC. Reasons given by learned trial court for convicting the accused appellant are cogent and valid and I do not see any ground to differ from them. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellant for the offence under Section 395, 458 and 342 of IPC, as indicated here-in-above, is maintained. However, I direct the concerned Jail authorities to give the benefit of Section 433 Cr.PC to the accused appellant, if law permits.Appeal dismissed. *******