IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.455 of 2008 BADRI SINGH @ BADARI SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 9.4.2009 KHAN In view of the submissions made, the delay in filing of this revision application is condoned and I.A. No. 953 of 2008 is allowed. The petitioner, who is the informant, is aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the Opposite parties 2 to 4 for an offence under sections 323, 341, 325/34 of the Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court in paragraph 9 has observed that P.W.2 stated that he took injury report from the Doctor on cost of Rs.500-600. He submits that in fact P.W.2 stated that he had spent Rs.500-600 on treatment of injured and not for obtaining the injury report. He submits that recording of the aforesaid statement of P.W. 2 is a bonafide mistake. It appears from the impugned judgment that there was a land dispute. In fact neither the Investigating Officer nor the Doctor appeared for their depositions in spite of summons to them. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. This revision application is accordingly dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J)