KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 20-10-1982 passed by Sri P. Dayal, the then Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1982, whereby the above noted appeal of the applicant has been dismissed and the conviction under Sections 420/34, I. P. C. and sentence 9 months, R. I and a fine of Rs. 1000/- awarded by the judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, by order dated 25-3-82 in case No. 695 of 1982, have been confirmed. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in brief is that the complainant Shyam Behari Gupta started the business of pawning ornaments from 1-1-1977 in Shabjabanpurtown. Ram Saran applicant and co-accused Moti Ram pawned one and of silver on 1-9-1978 against Rs. 960/ -. Both the accused persons again pawned a golden the roll on 28-12-1978 and further both the accused pawned 34 Lachhao and one pair of paizeb of silver on 17-1-1979 against Rs. 1000/ -. As the accused did not approach the complainant for redeeming their articles in spite of the demand of the complainant, though the prices of gold and silver had also been increased, the complainant got the articles tested and found those articles of brass and gillat instead of gold and silver. Shyam Behari Gupta lodged a report at the police station Kotwali and moved an application to the Superintendent of Police Shahjahanpur also. Sri J. P. Gupta investigated the case. After investigation of the case the accused persons were charge-sheeted. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined 6 witnesses in order to prove its case. Accused applicant pleaded not guilty and stated that he had pawned the ornaments with the complainant against money, but they were tested at the time of pawning. When he demanded back his pawned articles, the complainant wanted to return the artificial ornaments. The accused also examined in his defence one Ashok Kumartandon as D. W. 1. ( 4 ) AFTER considering the evidence on record the learned Magistrate found the applicant guilty of the offence charged with and he convicted and sentenced as stated above. The applicant filed appeal No. 182 of1982 before the Sessions Judge against the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction arid sentence of the applicant. The applicant filed appeal No. 182 of1982 before the Sessions Judge against the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction arid sentence of the applicant. The applicant has come up before this Court in his revision above noted. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that it is a case in which the link evidence has not been produced by the prosecution in order to prove that the articles which ware subsequently tested and produced in the court or replaced by those of artificial ornaments. Whenever any article is pawned by any parson the article is tested immediately at that time so that he may not be defrauded or cheated by the persons who pawned. ( 6 ) I have examined the evidence on record and considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant. P. W. 1 Shyam Behari. Gupta, Banwari Lal (P. W. 3) and Brij Nandan (P. W. 5) have been examined on the point of pawning of the articles by the accused applicant with Shyam Behari Gupta (P. W. 1), Ganga Ram (P. W. 2) and Pameshwar Prasad (P. W. 4) have also been examined to prove the fact that the article Nos. Ito VI were tested by them and they were not of gold or silver. There is no evidence on record to show that articles pawned by the applicant were sealed at the spot and were not tested by the complainant at the very time except the bald statement of the complainant. It does not appellant to be correct that the articles when pawned were not tested. The complainant who was dealing in pawnies business for about two decades was not expected to have pawned the articles without testing the same on the mere ipsa dixit of the accused that they were made of pure gold and silver. The defence plea that the accused asked the complainant to return his articles but the complainant wanted to return the artificial ornaments appears to be convincing as Banwari Lal (P. W. 3), the own witness of the complainant deposed that he could not say that the articles in court were the same which were pawned. The defence plea that the accused asked the complainant to return his articles but the complainant wanted to return the artificial ornaments appears to be convincing as Banwari Lal (P. W. 3), the own witness of the complainant deposed that he could not say that the articles in court were the same which were pawned. Unless there is independent evidence connecting the accused with the articles alleged to be artificial for-which the accused is being prosecuted, the conviction and sentence of the accused applicant cannot be sustained. In the present case evidence produced by the prosecution is insufficient to establish that the articles pawned by the accused person were the same articles which were tested and produced in the court by the prosecution. However the co-accused Moti has been given benefit of doubt only on the ground that his name was not entered in the register. The evidence against the appellant and co-accused Moti is one and the same as such the applicant is also entitled to benefit of doubt. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the courts below to the applicant are set aside. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Revision allowed. .