Judgment Surinder Sarup, J. 1. The petitioner wa6 convicted for the offence under Section 409, IPC and was sentencd to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two year by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj, by his judgment dated 2nd July, 1985. 2. He filed an appeal which was decided by the Court of the Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Palamau, Daltonganj on 13th July, 1988, whereby the offence was altered to one under Section 408, IPC and sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000 was imposed. 3. At the time of the admission of this revision petition, on 4th November, 1988 the following order was passed : "This revision will be heard on the question of sentence as the Appellate Court while upholding the conviction under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code has sentenced him to pay a fine only which is against the punishment pr ovided under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances, issue notice for enhancement of sentence. In the meantime, realisation of fine shall remain stayed." 4 The petitioner has filed his show cause at the time of hearing which has been placed on the record. Since the show cause was issued on the question of enhancement of sentence, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the case also. 5. After going through the judgments of the courts below and the evidence on the record, I find that the courts below have not dealt with the case according to law. Firstly, the informant in this case is a superior officer under whom the petitioner was working at the relevant time. In This connection the finding of the trial court is that the said informant, i. e. Sri R. K. Jha, Executive Officer of the Store had also his hands in the declaration of the amount in this case. That being the position, the very genesis of the prosecution case against the petitioner is vitiated. The said R. K. Jha should have been made a co-accused. Moreover, the circumstances, which come out of the prosecution evidence were not put to the petitioner, in his statement under Section 313, Cr PC, as a result of which prejudice was caused to him, as he was not given any opportunity explain those circumstances. This is a case where the main culprit has been let off ; rather he is the informant against the petitioner. This is a case where the main culprit has been let off ; rather he is the informant against the petitioner. 6. The occurrence is said to be of the year 1975 and 20 years have now elapsed since then. It has been submitted by the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State that inspite of the fact that the said R. K. Jha was not made a co-accused, there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner and he was rightly convicted. Be that as it may, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 7. Consequently, the rule for enhancement of the sentence is discharged and while setting aside the judgments of the courts below, the petitioner is hereby acquitted of the charge.