IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37719 of 2008 Shambhu Prasad, son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad, village and PS Patparia Mufassil, Dist. East Champaran – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Ramesh Singh, son of Lal Singh, 3) Ajay singh, son of Late Harihar Singh, both of village Patparia, Dist. East Champaran – Opp. Parties. 2 19.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order rejecting the complaint filed by way of protest by him against accused Ajay Singh and Ramesh Singh as well as the order passed in Cr. Revision No.25/2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC III, East Champaran. The court below while conducting enquiry found that there is sufficient evidence against the accused persons of having committed theft of the motor cycle belonging to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner relies heavily on the statement of PW 3 who has allegedly supported the protest cum complaint petition. PW 3 has stated that he saw the motor cycle belonging to the petitioner at Balua Chowk. He claims that he was also present in the court on the date when the occurrence took place. The court has disbelieved the evidence of this witness which is rather vague as it does not explain how he was so close to the petitioner. It appears that the court noticed that there was difficulty in believing this witness as he was having difficulty in 2 identifying the motor cycle as there is a difference on the matters printed on the motor cycle. Why he would notice that complainant had taken his motor cycle to court from where it was stolen is not explained by the complainant or this witness. This witness is not even client of the complainant. I, thus, find that the evidence is rather vague and cannot form the basis of proceeding against the petitioner. On the whole it appears that none of the witnesses have seen this petitioner committing the theft and as such the court rejected the complaint petition. I find no illegality in the reasoning of the court below. This application is dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)