IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.55 of 2008 SUMITRA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. For the Opp. Party : Mr. Raghunandan Kr. Singh, Adv Mr. Bimal Kumar, Adv. For the State : Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---------- 4 09.01.2009 I.A. No. 1827 of 2008. It appears that under order dated 29.08.2008, notices in the limitation matter was issued upon the opposite parties. The opposite parties have appeared. They have chosen not to file any reply affidavit controverting the facts enumerating in the application seeking condonation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of 42 days in filing the present application seeking leave to appeal. In the facts and circumstances, for the reasons stated in the condonation application the same is allowed. I.A. No. 1827 of 2008 stands disposed of. Heard both the sides. Petitioner has taken exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court (1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram) whereby the opposite parties herein were tried and acquitted of the charge - 2 - punishable under section 395, 376/511 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. This court perused the judgment. The learned trial court has taken into account various aspects of the matter including the series of litigations going on between the parties, the abnormal delay in filing the complaint as also the nature of evidence brought on record in support of the allegations. This court after hearing both the sides is of the view that the stand taken by the learned trial court in acquitting the opposite parties cannot be said to be patently illegal. No case for interference is made out. The application stands disposed of. Rajeev/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)