IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.109 of 2009 KAMLESH SAO SON OF LATE BANDHU SAO Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. TULSI SAO SON OF LATE AKLU SAO 3. DINANATH SAO SON OF TULSI SAO ----------- 3. 30.11.2009 For the reasons stated in the judgment, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. S.L.A. is dismissed. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that after acquittal of the opposite parties in the present case, cognizance u/s.211 I.P.C has been taken against the present appellant, which is strange since just because an acquittal has been recorded, it does not mean that the case was false. The prosecution may fail to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for all kinds of reasons and consequent acquittal does not necessarily mean the case is false. In this case especially when the judgment has been recorded giving the opposite parties benefit of doubt, it is strange that the informant is being proceeded against. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )