IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.57 of 2008 BIRENDRA KUMAR RAI Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2.AHILAYA DEVI 3. SHYAM SUNDER MISTRI For the Petitioner :Mr. Pramod Mishra For o.p.no. 2 & 3 :Mr.Dharmendra Kr. Paswan For o.p.no.1 :Mr.S.A Ahmad ----------- 4. 12.01.2009 Heard. The petitioner-complainant seeks to file an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court. This court from the findings culled out at paragraph 15 of the judgment finds that the complainant himself had not named the present opposite parties in the FIR which he initially lodged (Exhibit-B) It further appears that during the statement recorded under section 202 Cr.PC. no allegation has been made against the present opposite parties. The consideration of the matter by the learned trial court cannot be faulted. The interference in the judgment and order of acquittal by allowing the present application, shall not subserve cause of justice. The application stands dismissed. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner contends that one of the accused in the present case is still absconding and the trial is likely to commence once he is brought to court. He submits that the present order may not prejudice the case of the complainant so far as the trial of the said accused is concerned. This Court finds force in the submission of the counsel for the - 2 - petitioner. Consideration(s) in law vary when an application seeking leave to appeal is/are heard. This Court, therefore, makes it clear that rejection of the present application shall not cause any prejudice to the prosecution in the proposed/pending trial of another co-accused. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )