ORDER : 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.607/2009 modifying the sentence awarded under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and affirming the remaining sentences awarded by the Trial Court, the appellant is before this Court. 2. In Sessions Case No.77/2009 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore, the appellant being the sole accused was charged for the offences under Sections 341, 392 read with 397, and 506 (ii) of the IPC. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 16.09.2009 convicted the appellant/accused for the offences under Sections 341, 392 read with 397, and 506 (ii) of the IPC and sentenced him (i) to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and imposed a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, further 7 days of imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC; (ii) undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years, with a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of 3 months for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC read with Section 397 of the IPC; and (iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of the fine, one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 506 (ii) of the IPC. It was ordered that the accused has to undergo the punishment concurrently. 3. The appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, preferred Criminal Appeal No.607/2009 before the High Court. 4. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and while confirming the conviction, imposed a sentence of seven years under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the IPC, instead of eight years as imposed by the Trial Court. Consequently, the appellant has completed about four years and eight months in jail. 5. Thereafter, by interim order dated 19.02.2021, this Court granted bail to the appellant subject to certain terms and conditions. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent/State and perused the material on record. 7. Consequently, the appellant has completed about four years and eight months in jail. 5. Thereafter, by interim order dated 19.02.2021, this Court granted bail to the appellant subject to certain terms and conditions. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent/State and perused the material on record. 7. During the course of submissions, appellant's counsel drew our attention to the fact that the framing of charge under Section 397 of the IPC was erroneous inasmuch as the knife which was recovered from the appellant/accused was not at all a deadly weapon. Alternatively, it was contended that it was a small knife and there is no proof of the fact that the said knife was a deadly weapon. Consequently, Section 397 of the IPC could not have been invoked as against the appellant herein. Elaborating on the said submission, learned counsel for the appellant contended that PW1 and PW2, who are stated to be the victims, have not adverted to any injury suffered by them during the course of the incident. In the circumstances, the charge against the appellant under Section 397 of the IPC would not arise at all and even otherwise the prosecution has failed to prove the case under Section 397 of the IPC. Hence the punishment imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court as well as the reduced sentence by the High Court is incorrect. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the punishment imposed under Section 392 of the IPC for robbery states that the said punishment could extend upto ten years. The appellant has already completed about four years and eight months of incarceration. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment(s) may be modified by allowing this appeal by holding that offence under Section 392 of the IPC has been proved and restricting the punishment to the period already undergone. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submitted that there is no merit in this appeal; that PW1 and PW2, who are victims, as well as PW3 and PW5, have consistently deposed against the appellant herein. The charge under Section 397 of the IPC was rightly framed and the offence was also proved inasmuch as the appellant was carrying about a 6 cm knife. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed. 10. The charge under Section 397 of the IPC was rightly framed and the offence was also proved inasmuch as the appellant was carrying about a 6 cm knife. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed. 10. We have considered the aforesaid rival contentions in light of the evidence on record and also considered the provisions, namely, Section 397 as well as Section 392 of the IPC. Section 397 of the IPC states that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the punishment of such offender shall not be less than seven years. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no proof by the prosecution that the knife which was sought to be used by the appellant herein was a deadly weapon. Consequently, the charge under Section 397 was incorrectly framed as against the appellant herein. Also, the offence has not been proved against the appellant, as the knife was not a deadly weapon. 12. We find force in the said submission of learned counsel for the appellant and hence we find that even if the charge under Section 397 of the IPC has been framed as against the appellant herein, as the knife in question cannot be termed to be a deadly weapon within the scope and ambit of Section 397 of the IPC, there is no proof that the appellant had used a deadly weapon. Consequently, the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the appellant-accused only under Section 392 of the IPC. 13. Section 392, inter alia, states that whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, there is no minimum punishment which has been prescribed under the said Section and the maximum punishment is ten years. 14. We find that since Section 392 of the IPC is applicable to the case of the appellant herein. Since the appellant has undergone four years and eight months of incarceration and the maximum punishment is ten years, interest of justice would be served if the sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant herein. 15. We find that since Section 392 of the IPC is applicable to the case of the appellant herein. Since the appellant has undergone four years and eight months of incarceration and the maximum punishment is ten years, interest of justice would be served if the sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant herein. 15. The Appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms. While we confirm the conviction under Section 392 of the IPC, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant herein by modifying the judgment of the High Court. In other aspects, the impugned judgment is affirmed. 16. It is stated that the appellant is on bail. Since we have reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, the bail- bonds stand cancelled.