Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1632 of 2009 ====================================================== Gannath Prasad Singh S/O Late Gaya Prasad Singh R/O Village- Sadanandpur, P.S.-Balia, Distt.-Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Mogal Yadav S/o Ishwari Yadav 3. Ram Uday Yadav S/o Mogal Yadav 4. Kirandeo Yadav S/o Mogal Yadav, O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 are R/o Village- Sadanandpur, P.S.-Balia, Distt.-Begusarai .... .... Opposite Party s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Gauri Shanker Gupta, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 17-12-2012 After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in the impugned judgment dated 18th August, 2009 passed in Complaint Case 603 (C ) of 2001/ Tr. No. 489 of 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, so far it has acquitted the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4 for charges under [STATUTE] . From perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the occurrence in question had taken place in the year Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1632 of 2009 (3) dt.17-12-2012 2/3 2001, and accused persons were put on trial. During the course of trial 7 P.Ws. were examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of the prosecution case. On close scrutiny of the evidence, by reasoned and speaking order, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai has held the accused-opposite parties guilty for the charges under [STATUTE] , but acquitted them for charges under [STATUTE] . However, instead of sentencing them to prison, they have been released on due admonition in exercise of his powers under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order only on the ground that evidence of witnesses have not properly been appreciated by the learned trial court , and, therefore, has acquitted the accused persons for some of the charges. No other legal infirmity or procedural irregularity was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled law that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the High Court should normally refrain from reappraising the evidence of witnesses for coming to different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. In the facts and circumstances and for the reasons Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1632 of 2009 (3) dt.17-12-2012 3/3 recorded above, this application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 392

Statute Text:
Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Robbery. Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.