Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1272 of 2008 ====================================================== Pashupati Yadav, son of late Bsudeo Mahto, resident of village Danibigha, Police Station and District Sheikhpura .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Sharwan Kumar Yadav, son of late Damodar Yadav 2. Praveen Yadav, son of Sri Sharwan Kumar Yadav, both residents of village Danibigha, Police Station and District Sheikhpura. 3. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad-II, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Umanath Mishra, Addl. P.P. For Opp. Party nos. 1 and 2: Mr. Subroteswar De, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 07-09-2012 After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, this Court does not find any good and cogent ground to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 25.8.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3/147 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Sheikhpura, whereby the aforesaid appeal preferred by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 has been allowed and they have been acquitted, after setting aside and reversing the judgment and order dated 14.11.2007 passed in G.R. Case No. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1272 of 2008 (3) dt.07-09-2012 2 / 2 2 106 of 2002/Trial No.297 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sheikhpura, convicting them for charges under [STATUTE] . It is true that the learned trial court, after considering the evidence of the prosecution had held the accused opposite party nos. 1 and 2 guilty for charges under [STATUTE] and maximum sentence awarded against them was of six months. However, it is equally true that there is some land dispute between the parties and a Partition Suit was pending for the same. An occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 2002 when the informant had gone to watch his standing crops standing over the lands under dispute. The learned lower appellate court by re-appreciating the entire materials/evidence and by taking into consideration the factual aspect of the matter has allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, and thereby has acquitted them for the charges in question, which appear to be of petty nature. In the given facts, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 341

Statute Text:
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully restraining any person. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.