IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.48625 of 2007 1. BINAY PRASAD @ BINAY SINGH S/O SHEI SAHAY MAHTO @ SHEO SAHAY PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE KASIMPUR, P.S. ISLAMPUR, DIST. NALANDA. 2. SHEO SAHAY PRASAD, SON OF HEMAN MAHTO R/O VILL. KASIMPUR, P.S. ISLAMPUR, DIST.NALANDA. ---- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANIL KUMAR,(ADVOCATE), SON OF INDRADEO SINGH, R/O MUHALLA HANUMANGANJ, WARD NO.7, ISLAMPUR, P.S. ISLAMPUR, DIST. NALANDA. ---- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 06. 23.03.2010 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners. The State is, however, represented. Petitioners, who are accuseds of a case instituted under Sections 363, 364 of the Penal Code based on a complaint, have approached this Court calling in question the revisional order dated 31.08.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Nalanda, in Criminal Revision no. 03 of 2004, whereby the said revision was dismissed. Petitioners had filed the aforesaid revision application aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2003, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, whereby cognizance under diverse Sections of Penal Code was taken and warrants of arrest were directed to be issued. Notices were directed to be issued to the complainant/opposite party no.2. Order dated 15.10.2008 records that the application stood dismissed in respect of opposite party no.2 for non-compliance with the order. This Court does not find any illegality and/or infirmity 2 in the revisional order affirming the order taking cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate which is based on materials available on record. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)