Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.283 of 2009 ====================================================== Umesh Sharma , son of Late Shyam Narain Sharma, resident of village- Rampur Chauram, P.S. Rampur Chauram in the district of Arwal. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Girijesh Sharma @ Girjesh Sardar, son of Kameshwar Sharma, resident of village- Sonbhadra, P.S. Karpi in the district of Arwal. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil kumar, with Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. G.P. Jaiswal, APP For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Shevendra Prasad, Adev. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 03-10-2012 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. By the impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 2006/ 55 of 2006 by learned Additional Sessions judge, F.T.C.-4, Jehanabad, accused opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted for charges under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in support of the prosecution case altogether four witnesses were examined and if the evidence of those witnesses are reappraised and reconsidered in proper perspective, then there are materials to record a judgment of conviction against the accused opposite party no.2. It is contended that the prosecution evidence has not been properly considered by the learned trial court. Learned trial court has come to a finding that there is no eye witness of alleged occurrence of abduction of victim Geeta Patna High Court CR. REV. No.283 of 2009 (3) dt.03-10-2012 2 / 2 2 Devi and the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The learned trial court has further recorded that the Investigating Officer has not investigated the case properly and by taking into consideration all these aspects, he has acquitted the accused opposite party no. 2 from all the charges. No other legal infirmity or procedural irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal. It is well settled that while exercising revisional jurisdiction the court should normally refrain from reappraising the evidence/materials for coming to different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. In the given facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. In the result, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 468

Statute Text:
Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Forgery for the purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.