P.K. Jain, J.@mdashHeard Sri A.C. Nigam, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
2. This is a revision against the judgment and order of acquittal in S.T. No. 225 of 1984 passed by Sri V.D. Dubey, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Agra whereby opposite parties Prakash Chandra and Nitya Prakash were acquitted and some of the accused were convicted. Learned A.G.A. points out that the accused who were convicted by the trial court preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 2238 of 1986, Hari Bdbu v. State, which has been allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 9.11.1987. Learned Counsel for the revisionist does not dispute this fact. The accused who were convicted were assigned the main role whereas the role assigned to the opposite parties in this revision is secondary. There does not appear any illegality.
3. The revision deserves to be rejected.
The revision is accordingly rejected.
