Cr.R.No.1017 of 2011 and Cr.R.No.1015/2011 13.12.2011. Shri S.R.Porwal and Shri Tousif Warsi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri L.L.Sharma, Govt.Advocate for respondent-State. With consent arguments heard on merits. This order shall dispose of two revisions being Cr.R.No.1017/2011 and Cr.R.No.1015/2011 as both revision arises out of same appeal. Petitioners have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for offence under Section 420 of IPC and also for the same period for offence under Section 406 of IPC. Basic facts are that one Puralal was owning a tractor. The petitioners have taken possession of the tractor from Puralal on lease hold basis, but later on it is alleged that they sold the said tractor to a third party, from whose possession the tractor was seized. According to the complainant, the tractor was found in possession of Shri Balram Sharma, who claims to have purchased from Puralal, but denies to have made such a sale, yet the prosecution was required to prove on record that the petitioners have something to do with the sale in question, so as to commit the offence under Sections 420 or 406 of IPC. The possession of the tractor from Balram would not prove the case of the prosecution against the petitioners under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. It is also pertinent to note that Balram has not been made accused, despite all these the trial Court convicted both the petitioners and appellate Court upheld the sentence. For the reasons stated above, it is apparent that the judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court cannot be sustained. Consequently, the revision filed by the petitioners is allowed and the sentence awarded to them is set aside. Bail bonds of the petitioners are also discharged. In case, fine has been paid by the petitioners, the same shall be refunded back to them. C.C.as per rules. ( M. C. GARG ) JUDGE RJ/