JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of conviction dated 21.11.2005 and Order of Sentence dated 22.11.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-VI, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.429 of 2001 whereby and where under the learned court below held the appellant-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years with fine of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand). 3. Learned senior counsel, Mr. P.P.N. Roy appearing for the appellant submits that consequent upon the cancellation of the bail, the appellant has been arrested on 24.08.2018 and a fresh Vakalatnama has been executed by the appellant and his signature has been duly attested by the concerned authority of Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh in favour of Pandey Ashok Nath Roy and Miss. Pragati Prasad. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds but he did not press the other grounds and confines only to the ground that the sentence awarded to the appellant is highly excessive hence the same be reduced. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that though the appellant stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code besides the offence punishable under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code but he has been acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and no property stolen in commission of any dacoity has been recovered from his possession. It is then submitted that the appellant has been convicted only on the allegation that upon the intimation of the informant a gun allegedly stolen in commission of dacoity was recovered from the house of the co-convict Ashma Munda. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant further draws the attention of this Court towards para-7 at running page-8 of the impugned judgment and submits that it has been mentioned that the appellant was in custody since 03.09.1999 and he remained all along in custody during the trial and was granted bail vide order dated 27.02.2006 in this appeal. Thus, he has already remained in custody for six years and five months. Thus, he has already remained in custody for six years and five months. It is also submitted that the alleged occurrence took place about two decades ago and nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant-accused and that the appellant is a poor man having children to be looked after. Hence, it is submitted that the sentence of the appellant be modified to the period of custody he has already undergone during the trial. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection to the prayer. 6. Considering the facts of the case, as nothing has been recovered from the possession of the appellant and he has been acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the fact that he has family members to support and that the occurrence took place way back on 18.01.1999, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the sentence of the appellant be modified to the period he has already undergone in custody. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction of the appellant by the impugned judgment, the Order of Sentence dated 22.11.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-VI, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.429 of 2001 is modified in respect of the appellant and the appellant is sentenced for the period of custody already undergone by him. As the appellant has already undergone the sentence, hence he is directed to be released from custody forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case. 7. Send a copy of this judgment to the court concerned through FAX. 8. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the sentence.