IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.503 of 2006 PARSHU RAM RAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner; Vinod Kumar Seth,Advocate. For the O.P.No.2; Mr.Arbind Nath Pandey, Advocate. 5 25.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision application has been referred against the order3.4.2006 passed by Sri Om Prakash Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, and Kaimur at Bhabua in G.R.No.972/1996, Tr.No.795/06 thereby out of seven accused persons six have been convicted and only opposite party no.2 has been acquitted. Submission of learned consul for the petitioner is that it was the duty of the trial court to supply police papers to the accused but the court below itself did not supply the police papers to opposite party no.2 and has also acquitted on the ground of non-supply of police paper. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that this is a case of 1994 and the opposite party no.2 has already been harassed for more than 12 years. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is legally entitled to get the benefit of any technical flaw occurred in the trial and the court below has rightly acquitted opposite party no.2 for non-supply of police papers under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is mandatory. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. - 2 - Since substantial justice has been done by the court below by convicting six accused persons out of seven accused and the case is of the year 1994 and opposite party no.2 has been harassed for twelve years I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned jujdgement and order dated 3.4.2006.Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. B.Jha (Ghanshyam Prasad)