JUDGMENT : V.N. VARMA, J. 1. This revision is directed against an order dated 25-8-76 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, confirming the conviction and sentences recorded against the applicants u/s 147 IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that on 8-7-75, at about 6 P.M., the cattle of the applicants strayed into the field of the complainant and caused damage to the crop standing therein and when the complainant tried to take them to the cattle pound, they beat him and frustrated his attempt in taking the cattle to the cattle pound. The complainant reported the matter to the police, but the police took no action on the report made by him. Accordingly, he filed a complaint against the applicants under Sections 323, 324, 427 IPC and 24 Cattle Trespass Act. 3. The applicants pleaded not guilty and repudiated the truth of the allegations made against them. They attributed their false implication due to enmity. 4. The trial court found no case made out against the applicants u/s 323, 324, 427 IPC and 24 Cattle Trespass Act and accordingly it acquitted them of the charges under these heads. It, however, found them guilty of rioting and sentenced them to three months' RI u/s 147 IPC. Aggrieved, the applicants went up in appeal; the appellate court dismissed their appeal but set aside the sentences of imprisonment and instead imposed a fine of Rs. 100/-on each one of them. 5. It is one of those rare cases in which the accused have been acquitted of the substantive offences and yet they have been convicted u/s 147 IPC. In my opinion, their conviction u/s 147 IPC was legally untenable after they had been acquitted of the substantive offences. Section 147 IPC reads: * * * 6. "Rioting" has been defined u/s 146 of the Code. It reads: * * * 7. The term "unlawful assembly" has been defined u/s 141 IPC. The relevant portion of this section may be reproduced below: * * * 8. Reading the above sections together it is clear that a person would be guilty of rioting only when he is a member of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which is to commit some offence. The term "unlawful assembly" has been defined u/s 141 IPC. The relevant portion of this section may be reproduced below: * * * 8. Reading the above sections together it is clear that a person would be guilty of rioting only when he is a member of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which is to commit some offence. In the instant case, the applicants were said to be members of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to beat the complainant and to frustrate his attempt in taking their cattle from his field to the cattle pound. The trial court acquitted the applicants of the aforesaid two offences, i.e., of beating the complainant and of their having rescued their cattle from being impounded by the complainant. If they were acquitted of the offences for the commission of which they had allegedly ganged up, then there was no question of their having formed an unlawful assembly. And if there was no unlawful assembly, then there was no question of their having committed an offence of rioting u/s 147 IPC. 9. I find that while convicting the applicants u/s 147 IPC the lower appellate court has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in 1984 AWR 632 State of U.P. v. Chandrapal Singh. In the case covered by this decision, the accused had been sent up to stand their trial under Sections 147 and 323/149 IPC. No evidence was recorded in the case and the parties filed a compromise. The Magistrate acquitted the accused of both the charges under Sections 147 and 323/ 149 IPC. The Government went up in appeal against the acquittal of the accused persons u/s 147 IPC. The argument advanced on behalf of the State was that the offence u/s 147 IPC was non-compoundable and as such the Magistrate was in error when, while acquitting the accused of the case u/s 323 IPC, he acquitted them u/s 147 IPC also. This submission of the State was accepted and it was held that even though the accused were acquitted of the substantive offence u/s 323 IPC, their acquittal u/s 147 IPC was incorrect and not in accordance with law. Nobody can find fault with the decision of this case. The accused could not have been acquitted u/s 117 IPC merely because they had been acquitted u/s 323/149 IPC. Nobody can find fault with the decision of this case. The accused could not have been acquitted u/s 117 IPC merely because they had been acquitted u/s 323/149 IPC. The offence u/s 323 IPC was compoundable and it was open to the complainant to have compromised the case with the accused persons even though he had received injuries at their hands. The acquittal of the accused persons u/s 323 IPC, however, did not take away the fact that the assembly which they had formed for beating the complainant, was not an unlawful assembly. The unlawfulness of the assembly would continue to be there even though the complainant entered into a compromise u/s 323 IPC. As the offence u/s 147 IPC was not compoundable, the Court rightly set aside the acquittal of the accused persons u/s 147 IPC. This case has, however, no relevance to the facts of the case before us. After the applicants had been acquitted of the substantive offences, there was no question of their having formed an unlawful assembly for commuting an offence. Their conviction u/s 147 IPC was, therefore, wholly misconceived. 10. In the result, I allow this revision and set aside the conviction and sentences passed against the applicant. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to them.