IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47423 of 2007 1. RAM AYODHYA SINGH SON OF LATE YADUNANDAN SINGH 2. RAJ KISHORE SINGH SON OF LATE SATYA NARAYAN SINGH. 3. VINAY SINGH SON OF SRI RAJ KESHORE SINGH 4. SANTOSH SINGH SON OF RAJ KISHORE SINGH 5. SUJIT SINGH SON OF ROOP NARAYAN SINGH (ALL R/O OF VILL. DUMRI BAIJU P.S. PATAHI IN THE DISTRICT OF EAST CHAMPARAN) ----- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. AMIRCHAN PASWAN SON OF LATE MUTUK PASWAN (R/O VILL. DUMRI BAIJU P.S. PATAHI IN THE DISTRICT OF EAST CHAMPARAN.) ---- OPP. PARTY. ----------- 03. 22.03.2010 Petitioners have assailed the order dated 17th September, 2007, passed in Cr. Revision no. 46 of 2007, whereby the revision application has been dismissed, and the order dated 28.12.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sikrahana at Motihari, in complaint case No. C-623 of 2006, has been affirmed. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has directed for issuance of processes against the accused persons. While rejecting the revision application, the learned revisional Court found as under in paragraph no.3: 3. Learned P.P. aswell as private lawyer engaged on behalf of the O.P. opposed the contention and submitted that at this stagethe learned Court below was required to see the prima-facie case and inthis case the complainant on S.A. as well as other witnesses namely Shambhu Paswan, Awadh Mishra, Radhika Devi and Arun Kumar Mishra have been examined andthey have supported the allegation and they have also supported the allegationfor the offence under SC. & ST.Act. It has further been contended that out of the witnesses only P.w.4 Arun Kumar Mishra is notcited witness but it was 2 already mentioned in the c omplaint that the names of the rest witnesses shall be given lateron. However, even the evidence of P.W.4 is discarded then the statements of other witnesses are in support of the allegation showing prima-facie case. Therefore, submitted that the impugned order is proper and justified and this revision application is not fit to be admitted.” This Court finds no merit in the application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)