Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.107 of 2008 ====================================================== Ram Suraj Mahto son of Ram Lakhan Mahto, resident of village- Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Sonbarsa, District Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sukan Mahto son of late Ram Khelawan Mahto 3. Moti Mahto son of Sitaram Mahto 4. Teja Mahto 5. Ganesh Mahto Both sons of Dayal Mahto 6. Indrajeet Mahto son of Rudal Mahto 7. Daya Mahto son of Sukan Mahto O.P. No. 2 to 7 are resident of village Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Sonbarsa, District Sitamarhi. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogendra Mishra, with Mr. Raghunath Kumar and Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP For the O.P. No. 2 to 7 : Mr. Rabi Bhushan Prasad-1, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 4 24-08-2012 After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at great length as also learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused opposite party no. 2 to 7, this Court does not find any good and cogent reason for interfering with the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd November 2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 2003/ 75 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 4 , Sitamarhi acquitting the accused opposite party no. 2 to 7 for the charges under [STATUTE] , though by the same judgment and order the accused opposite party no. 2 to 7 have been convicted for charges under [STATUTE] and the learned trial court in exercise Patna High Court CR. REV. No.107 of 2008 (4) dt.24-08-2012 Page 2 of 2 of his powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offender Act, 1958 has released them on execution of personal bond of Rs. 5000/- each for a period of two years for maintaining peace and good behavior. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has not considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in their proper perspective, and, therefore, on the same set of evidence, he has acquitted the accused persons for certain charges, but has convicted them for some other charges. It is well settled that while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court should normally avoid reappraisal or re-appreciation of the evidence for coming to a different conclusion. In the given facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside or reversing the impugned judgment, so far the accused opposite party no. 2 to 7 have been acquitted. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 479

Statute Text:
Section 479 of the Indian Penal Code. None. A mark used for denoting that movable property belongs to a particular person is called a property mark.