B. C. Jaubari, J. - (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. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that the appellant was entrusted with the fertilizer and he had given a receipt for the same which was admitted by him. It was further held that the fertilizer was misappropriated by him. In the result, the revisionist was convicted alongwith his superior officer Mathura Prasad who was charged for abetment. The appellate court while maintaining the conviction of the revisionist held that Mathura Prasad might have been guilty of negligence but was not guilty of abetment and consequently the appeal of Mathura Prasad was allowed and his conviction was set aside. The revisionist has filed this revision against his conviction. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and came to the conclusion that this revision so far as the conviction is concerned has no force and must be dismissed. The matter of entrustmeat and subsequent misappropriation of the same are matters of evidence and this court as a court of revision will not reappraise the evidence.
(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. The learned counsel urged that a lenient view of the sentence must be taken. I feel that the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced considering also the fact that the revisionist must have lost his job also consequent to the conviction. I accordingly feel that the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to six months' R. I. and the fine is maintained. I accordingly pass the following order in this revision ; The revision is dismissed with this modification in the sentence that two years' R. I. is reduced to six months' R. I. under section 409 IPC plus a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine a further sentence of six months' R. I. Revision dismissed.;