IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1562 of 2007 1. DORIK SINGH S/O LATE JHAGRU MAHTO 2. PREETAM KUMAR SON OF DORIK SINGH 3. SHIV NANDAN MAHTO SON OF JHAGRU MAHTO ALL ARE R/O VILL. SARI TOLA CHAKMURAD, P.S. WARISNAGAR, DIST. SAMASTIPUR. ---- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BALCHAND MAHTO SON OF NIRSAN MAHTO R/O VILL. SARI TOLE CHAKMURAD, P.S.WARISNAGAR, DIST. SAMASTIPUR ----OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ram Chandra Singh, APP ----------- 03 13.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners constitute second party to the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) read with Section 116 of the Code. They are aggrieved by the order passed on their appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 06 of 2001 ( Dorik Singh & ors. vs. the State of Bihar ( Balchand Mahto). Learned Executive Magistrate, Samastipur, passed the following order:- “bl vkyksd esa foi{kh izhre dqekj f”kouUnu egrks rFakk nksfjd flag dks ,d o’kZ rd “kkafr O;oLFkk cuk, j[kus gsrq 2000=00 :i;s dk ca/k i= rFkk mruh gh jkf”k dh nks izfrHkwfr nkf[ky djus dk vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS A fnukad 12-1- 2000 dks j[ksa A” Aggrieved by the said order the aforesaid appeal was preferred by the petitioners herein which was considered and rejected. It is contended that the order was passed by the learned Executive Magistrate after expiry of the statutory period. 2 Learned revisional Court in paragraph no.4 of the order has found that the Magistrate has already extended the period of the proceeding. This is what the Court has observed in paragraph no.4 of the order:- “4. After having gone the materials available before this court, it is noticed that the proceeding u/s 107 and 116 Cr. P.C. initiated on the police report of dated 25.10.99, parties were summoned. The applicant ( here the respondent No.2) examined all along three witnesses, while O.P. ( the appellants) placed nothing. The merit of witnesses, as it appears, have discussed well and the learned lower court appreciated in good manner stating there in that a case u/s 307 of the I.P.C. was pending between both the parties as well as there existed land dispute and the title suit including the proceeding u/s 145 of the Cr. P.C. which were in queue showing lengthy litigations amongst them. I also find that after hearing both the parties the learned S.D.O., samastipur vide order dated 20.9.2000 ( as the concerned Ext. Magistrate was on strike) extended the period of the proceeding for further three months. The ruling 1989 P.L.J.R. page 7 and B.L.J. 1980 page 569, cited in this regard have sufficiently strengthened the right observation of the learned Magistrate, Samastipur.” In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that execution of bond(s) pursuant to the order of the learned Magistrate shall not adversely affect the case of the petitioners with regard to the land in dispute. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)