IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.30 of 2009 NEELAM DEVI Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. GOPAL PRASAD 3. CHANDAN KUMAR 4. KUNDAN KUMAR 5. CHITU MISTRI ----------- 2 19.03.2009 Heard. The petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17th January, 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Trial No. 715 of 2008. By the said judgment, the accuseds (O.P. nos. 2 to 5 herein) have been acquitted of the charges(s) framed under section 379, 380 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court has, however, convicted all the accuseds under section 323 of Indian Penal Code. In order to prove the case, the prosecution appears to have examined four witnesses. C.W.1 Piyush Kant is the son of the complainant whereas C.W. 2 Uday Kumar is shopkeeper . C.W. 3 is complainant herself and C.W. 4 is Prabhakant Prasad. It appears that the dispute had arisen over possession of the shop which according to the prosecution itself belonged to the father-in-law of the present complainant(also an accused since deceased), had executed a sale deed in respect of the said property in favour of one Bimla Devi wife of one of the accuseds of the present case. Counsel for the petitioner fairly admits before this Court that a title suit has already been filed by the present 2 prosecution side, which is pending. In the back ground of the said facts, the consideration of matter made by the learned Trial Courts does not appear to have suffered any patent illegality. The Trial Court has recorded adequate reasons for not placing reliance on the prosecution witnesses in order to convict them under those sections. The application seeking leave to appeal has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )