IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.88 of 2008 Janardan Chaurasiya @ Janardan Ram Chaurasiya, son of late Musha Chaurasiya, resident of village- Amara Talab, Police Station- Sasaram (M), District-Rohtas …Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar, 2. Gupteshwar Chaurasiya son of Munshi Chaurasia, 3. Munsi Chaurasiya son of Ramlal Chaurasiya, Both (opposite party nos. 2 & 3) resident of Mohalla- Lakhnusarai Sasaram, Police Station & District- Sasaram (Rohtas) ….Opposite parties ----------- 6/ 12.05.2009 I.A. No. 2609 of 2008: This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the present application. For the reasons stated in the application, this interlocutory application is allowed and delay in filing the application is condoned. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3. This application has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.09.2008 passed by Sri Shiv Murat Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Complaint Case No.1005 of 1999/ Tr. No. 471/08, whereby he acquitted the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from the charges levelled against them. The prosecution case is that the complainant had a fertilizer shop. It is alleged that the opposite parties came at the place of occurrence and there was some dispute with respect to keeping the Generator which led to free fight between the parties. Later on, it is alleged that certain persons came on a Ambassador car and ran away with the box containing rupees two thousand belonging to the complainant. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the complainant has been supported by the complainant and other witnesses. On perusal of evidence of the witnesses, I find that the court below has disbelieved the witnesses firstly, on the ground that there is already a case with respect to the earlier occurrence pending between them and secondly, because of the fact that the complaint has deposed that he was not present at the place of occurrence, whereas, P.W.3 has deposed that he cannot say the number of the car nor does he know the accused-opposite parties from before the occurrence. Apart from this, the complainant could not give details about the business and earnings from the fertilizer shop. In the circumstances, I do not find that the reasons disclosed by the court below for disbelieving the evidence of the witnesses is perverse or unreasonable. In the result, this SLA is dismissed. JA/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)