IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.6 of 2011 VIJAY KUMAR SAH, son of Shree Narain Prasad Sah, resident of village, Surajganj, Police Station- Gamaharia, District-Madhepura ……. Petitioner/ Complainant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Bhola Singh alias Bhola Prasad Singh, son of Late Umraon Singh, Forester of Singheshwar Forest Area, Madhepura, resident of village-Mubarakpur, Police Station- Harnaut, Distt. Nalanda. 3. Bharti Singh, son of not known to appellant, Peon of Forest Department of Madhepura, resident of village- Lakshmipur, Police Station-Madhepura, District- Madhepura 4. Saroj Singh, son of Late Sheo Kumar Singh, Forest-Guard, resident of village- Singheshwar, Police Station, Singheshwar, District-Madhepura 5. Braj Kishore, son of Shree Gopal Das, posted as Ranger Department of Forest- under Saharsa Division, Madhepura, resident of Muhalla- Lohanipur, West, Police Station-Madamkuan, Distt. Patna ……. Opp. Parties ----------- 3/- 03.03.2011 This SLA has been preferred by the complainant of Complaint Case No. 96 of 2003(Tr. No. 83 of 2010) by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura was acquitting the accused persons-respondents no. 2 to 6 of the charges under sections 147, 323, 379, 385 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the allegation was that in spite of having deposited the renewal fee through a Bank Draft as indicated in the complaint petition for seeking the renewal of the licence, which was obtained by the complainant for running the Saw Mill, the accused -respondents came to the establishment of the complainant and started dislodging the fixed Saw Mill and when that was objected to by the complainant, his son and they were assaulted by the accused persons. The reason for the above occurrence as alleged by the complainant is that they were 2 demanding illegal gratification and some ranadari as well and the same not being paid, the act had illegally been committed. The evidence appears supporting the allegations on a prima facie basis as it appears discussed in the finding part of the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura. While doing so, the learned Magistrate was simultaneously considering the defence evidence, which was mostly in form of documents, which were records of official acts, performed by the officials like the respondents in performance of their daily legal duties as per which, it was indicated that on account of the non-renewal of the licence, the Saw Mill was dragged to be confiscated in a proceeding, which was vide Complaint Case No. 16(5) of 2003 (State of Bihar vs. Vijay Kumar Sah) and in execution of that particular order the police force was requisitioned by letter no. 72 dated 16.02.2003 and the Saw Mill and the whole establishment was confiscated and thereafter the same was handed over on some surety to the accused. Thus, the plea of the respondents that seizure of the confiscated Saw Mill was in performance of their supervisory duties appears finding favour with the learned Trial Judge probably in allowing their descriptions and acquitting them. After having heard, learned counsel for the appellant and after having considered the judgment impugned herein the court finds that it was one of the probable view which was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura 3 and in that view, the order of acquittal passed by the learned court below could not be said to be perversive. The appeal is dismissed. Ashwini/- (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)