IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.386 of 2009 AHMAD RAZA QUADRI @ MUNNA S/O MD. ZAMIRUDDIN --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAVIN KUMAR GUPTA SON OF MURLIDHAR SAO --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mrs. Mira Kumari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 02 12.10.2010 Petitioner is aggrieved by the appellate order dated 28.11.2008, whereby appeal preferred by him against order dated 10.03.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Begusarai in complaint case no. 860C/ 2006 has been affirmed. By order dated 10.03.2008, learned Magistrate refused to allow the application filed by the accused petitioner under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seal on the complaint bears 22.05.2006 as the date whereas the occurrence had taken place on 23.05.2006, and as per the signature of the advocate the complaint was drafted, prepared and signed on 24.05.2006. Learned lower appellate Court considered the submission and rejected the appeal after observing as under:- “4. A perusal of the record shows that the court stamp seal on the complaint petition does not bear the date 22nd May 2006 rather confusion has been created due to the date seal of stamp vendor Umesh Pd. Sah which is dated 22nd May 2006. Entire complaint petition is dated 24.5.06 and the date of occurrence mentioned in the complaint is also dated 23.5. 2006 and in the above circumstances the order dated 10.3.2008 whereby the prayer for enquiry u/s 340 Cr. P.C. was refused appears to be proper and just order and apparently there is no error or mis-chief committed by any one on the record and as such the order dated 10.3.2008 can not be set aside by allowing this criminal appeal and in the above facts, circumstances and legal position this criminal appeal without having any merit as such. The order dated 10.3.08 is upheld and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.” This Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by learned lower appellate Court meriting any interference. The application has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)