Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.765 of 2009 ====================================================== Krishna Murari Singh, son of late Balmukund Singh, resident of Buxar, Police Station Mufassil Buxar, District Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, son of Dinesh Kumar Singh, resident of Village Ramobariya, Police Station Buxar Mufassil, District Buxar 3. Mahesh Dutta Singh, son of Sri Nand Kishore Singh, resident of Civil Lines, Police Station Buxar Nagar, District Buxar .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the State of Bihar : Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, Addl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 16-10-2012 By the impugned judgment and order dated 19th March, 2009 passed in G.R. 1212 of 2003/ T.R. 1018 of 2009 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar, accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the charges under [STATUTE] . On the basis of materials available on record, as also on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the occurrence in question is said to have taken place in the month of August 2003 in a College premises. The petitioner is said to be the Professor-in-charge of a private College situate in Buxar Town. The accused- opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are said to be lecturers in Patna High Court CR. REV. No.765 of 2009 (3) dt.16-10-2012 2 / 2 2 the aforesaid College. On meticulous scrutiny of entire materials/ evidence available on the record, the learned trial court has come to a finding that the Professor-in-charge as also the lecturers, including the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3, were sitting together in one room and, therefore, the allegation of wrongful restraints punishable under [STATUTE] has been disbelieved. On scrutiny of materials and evidence, the learned trial court has further come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts and, therefore, by giving benefits of doubts to them, they have been acquitted of all the charges. In absence of any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity in the impugned judgment, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside 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.