IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.47 of 2008 NAZIR RAI Versus 1 BIRCHANDRA RAI 2 MUKUL RAI 3 JHINGUR RAI 4. STATE OF BIHAR For the Petitioner :Mr. Chandramauli Chandrasingh For the State :Mr.R.C.Singh,APP ---- 4. 27.01.2009 Heard. The petitioner-complainant takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the trial court in Tr.No.360 of 2008 (C-84 of 2002). By the said judgment, the opposite parties herein have been acquitted of the charge(s) under sections 447,379 and 504 IPC. As per allegations in complaint, the accused(s) (opposite parties herein) are said to have felled and taken away shisham and mango trees. The dispute pertains to Plot No.732. Both parties brought on record several documents of title and possession. Counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that there is dispute between the parties relating to the said land. However, it has been submitted that relating to the said land a title suit was filed. A second appeal arising out of the said suit seems to be now pending in this Court. In the light of those facts, the consideration of the matter by the learned trial court at paragraph 13 cannot be said - 2 - to be patently illegal. This court does not find any patent illegality in judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court. The present application seeking leave to appeal is devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed. Since the matter has been considered and dismissed on merit, the question of limitation pales into insignificance and accordingly the same (I. A No.1702 of 2008) is disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )