IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1509 of 2008 1. CHANDRAMA SINGH 2. RAJA RAM SINGH 3. KANHAIYA SINGH @ KANHAIYA JEE 4. JAMINDAR SINGH 1 TO 4 ALL SONS OF LATE NISAN SINGH. 5. SHEORATO DEVI WIFE OF SHRI CHANDRAMA SINGH 6. KAUSHALYA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI RAJA RAM SINGH 7. SHEOJEE SINGH 8. KAMLESH SINGH 9. PINTOO SINGH SON OF SHRI CHANDRAMA SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- TARARI, P.O. + P.S. TARARI, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEO NANDAN SINGH, S/O- LATE SHEO NANDAN SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE- TARARI, P.O. + P.S. TARARI, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR For the petitioners : Mr. Sachidanand Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP. 7 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 5.10.2005 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Piro in Case No. 419 of 2004 arising out of Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceeding whereby after affording opportunities to adduce evidence, it has been found that the members of the second party (petitioners herein) should be directed to execute bond to maintain peace. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioners preferred criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 44/2005. Learned Revisional Court considered the submissions and by a well reasoned order, dismissed the said appeal observing as under in paragraph nos. 8 and 9: “(8) Learned Magistrate after inquiry and evidence of both the parties, was pleased to pass the impugned order dated 5.10.05 directing the member of second party No-2 to 10 to execute a bond of Rs. 5000/ with two sureties of the like - 2 - amount each. (9) From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Magistrate considered the evidence of witnesses examined by both the parties. The member of opposite party filed show cause and examined one witness Chandrama Singh who had stated that no villagers are ready to given evidence on his behalf. Learned Magistrate has considered the evidence of both the parties and came to conclusion that there is apprehension of breach of peace to the member of first party and from the side of Opposite party. The finding of the learned Magistrate is quite legal and proper and passed on actual status of the proceeding. The impugned has been passed within the period of one year from the commencement of the proceeding u/s 107 Cr.P.C.. Hence, I come to the conclusion that the impugned order is quite legal and proper and I find that there is no merit in this memo of Appeal. Accordingly this Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceeding was extended beyond the statutory period. He, however, is not able to show from the pleadings/materials on record as to when the application was filed on behalf of the first party. The view taken by the learned appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse justifying interference. This Court, therefore, declines to interfere with the order impugned. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)