TUFAIL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated the 19th of November, 1981 given by Sri S K. Verma, II Adoitional District & Sessions Judge, Barabanki by which he dismissed the appeal filed by Tufail Ahmad the revisionist against his conviction by Sri S. M. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, IV, Barabanki vide his judgment and order dated the 4th August, 1980 convicting him under Section 409 IPC and sentencing him to two years' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine R. I. for a period of six months.

(2.) THE case against the appellant was that he: was working as Sahayak Nirikshak Haidargarh, Barabanki for the period 14th of March, 1966 to 30th of April, 1970. THE appellant in his capacity as Sahayak Nirikshak was entrusted with fertilizers of different varieties amour/ting to Rs. 47,000/- and odd for distribution which was not accounted for by him and was misappropriated.

(3.) THE learned counsel urged that the superior officer having been acquitted the benefit of that acquittal must also he extended to the revisionist. I have considered the argument and feel that as far as Mathura Prasad was concerned he was not tried nor convicted for the offence of 409 simpliciter but his conviction was for abetment of the offence. Even if it is assumed for argument sake that Mathura Prasad has wrongly been acquitted the benefit of the same cannot be extended to the present revisionist. Under the circumstances in so far as the conviction is concerned revision must fail.