IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8957 of 2008 1. GHULAM MD.YASIN @ NAZIM 2. ABDUL MAJID …PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. PILUA RAI …OPPOSITE PARTIES ---- 05. 15.11.2010 Both sides present. Petitioners are aggrieved by order taking cognizance dated 20.01.2005 as also the revisional order date 28.01.2005 passed in Cr. Revision No.37/05. It is the contention of petitioners that based on materials on record, no offence under section 436 IPC can be said to have been made out. It is next contended that section 4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would not at all apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. It seems from the order of revisional court that having regard to the subjective satisfaction recorded by learned Magistrate based on appraisal of fact, the revision application was dismissed. It is also contended that because of previous animosity between the parties, the present case was lodged with concocted allegations. If the material on record is not adequate enough to frame the charge(s), petitioners would be well-advised to raise the aforesaid issue at the stage of framing of charge and/or during trial. Once such an application is filed, it is expected that trial court shall consider and dispose of the 2 same in accordance with law uninfluenced by the present order. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )