IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.28 of 2008 KANCHAN KUMAR LAL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. AKHILESHWAR PANDEY For the petitioner : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy ‘Raman’, APP ----------- 4 15.01.2009 I.A. No. 1017/2008 The present application seeking leave to appeal appears to be barred by limitation. I.A. No. 1017/2008 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. For the reasons disclosed in the said application, this Court is prepared to condone the delay. I.A. No. 1017/2008 stands disposed of. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has called in question the judgment and order dated 4th December, 2007 passed by learned Trial Court whereby the accused (opposite party herein) was tried and acquitted of the charges under sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the court below has committed serious illegality. This Court, in the light of the submissions, perused the judgment. To me, it appears that there is a commercial dispute between the parties. This Court perused the findings recorded at paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the judgment and found that - 2 - adequate reason(s) has been assigned by the learned Trial Court for disbelieving the witnesses and acquitting the accused (opposite party herein) This Court does not find any patent illegality in the order. The present application seeking leave stands dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J )