( 1 ) THIS is a revision by Rampati Rai, who has been convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions judge of Gorakhpur under Section 406 I. P. C. and sentenced to two years simple imprisonment. He preferred an appeal against his conviction and sentence but it was dismissed by the learned sessions Judge of Gorakhpur. He has now come up before this Court in revision. When the revision was admitted, notice was issued to the applicant by a learned Judge of this Court to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced. The revision and the notice have been heard by us.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the matter certain facts may be stated. In the year 1947 a case under section 145 Cr. P. C. was started in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Bansgaon in gorakhpur district between Narsingh Pande and Ram Narain on the report of the Police, barhalganj. In that case certain plots of land had been attached by the court together with standing crops and were delivered to the supardagi of one Ambika Singh. The appointment of ambika Singh as sapurdar was subsequently cancelled by the said court and one Sheo Pujan misra was appointed as Sapurdar in his place by an order dated 3-11-1947. Sheo Pujan Misra, as appears from the copy of the order Ex. P-5 dated the 23rd of November 1954 passed by the then sub-Divisional Magistrate, was directed to cultivate the land and not to dispose of the crops in anyway without the courts order. Sheo Pujan Misra died after about a year of his appointment and he left a son Ramji and a brother Goverdhan. After the death of Sheo Pujari Misra, the applicant Rampati Rai was appointed a Shahna or Sapurdar of the crops alone which then existed over these plots. Rampati executed a Sapurdnama on the 1st of March 1949 and it was in the following terms:

"i Rampati Rai, son of Dukhi Rai, resident of. . . . agree as follows. I have been appointed Shahna by the police of the crops standing this day on the plots of land as detailed below. I agree to take the same under my sapurdgi and also agree to produce the same whenever required by the court or by the police. I will not cause any damage to the said crops nor will I permit any damage to be done to the same. "

( 3 ) AT the foot of the conditions aforesaid the Sapurdnama specified the khasra numbers of the different plots, their areas and the crops which stood over the same. The document did not give either an estimate of the quantity of the crop or of the price thereof.

( 4 ) IN the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. an order was passed by the Sub-Divisional magistrate on the 5th of November 1952 to the effect that the land and the crops attached should be released in favour of Narsingh Pande. Narsingh Pande got back the plots of land, but he failed to get the crop. Upon a motion made by him to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the matter was again taken up. The Magistrate by an order dated the 23rd of November 1954 observed as follows:

"under Courts order dated 3-11-47 the Secretary, Mandal Congress Committee, Balhalganj, Pt. Sheo Pujan was appointed receiver. He was directed to cultivate the land and not to dispose of the crop in anyway without Courts order. On his death Sri Rampati Rai Sabhapati Mandal barhalganj was given charge of the attached property in March 49. The heirs of Sri Sheo Pujan misra are his son and brother Ramji and Gobardhan. On 19-4-1954, Rampati was ordered to file an account of crops etc. from 1949 and the applicant was directed to to seek remedy against other sapurdgars or their heirs through proper court. The counsel of the Sapurdar Sri Rampati did not file any account and a notice was issued to him (Sri Rampati) to appear and show cause why he should not be prosecuted against under Section 406 I. P. C. I have gong through the explanation given by him and have heard arguments of counsel of both the parties. The receivership was transferred to Sri Rampati under courts order. It was his duty to have maintained a proper account of the