IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1464 of 2008 IDRISH DEWAN son of Late Hamid Dewan, resident of village khajuria Darwa P.S.Sikarpur, District West Champaran. …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHOLA MAHTO SON OF GAURI MAHTO 3. SUDARSHAN MAHTO 4. MAKSUDAN MAHTO, all are residents of village Khajuria Darwa P.S. Sikarpur, District West Champaran. 5. SHATRUDHAN MAHTO son-in-law of Bhola Mahto, resident of village Kachorba P.S. Bhelahi District East Champaran. …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioner : Mr.Bimlesh Kumar Pandey For opposite party: Mr.Ram Keshri Prasad For the State : Mr.J.Upadhyay, APP ----------- 02. 06.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner who is the informant of the case raises a grievance with respect to the judgment and order dated 13th November,2008 passed in Cr. Appeal No.168/07, preferred by o.p.nos 2 to 5 herein. An occurrence is said to have taken place on 04.03.1999 in which the informant(P.W.3), his wife and son received injuries. This occurrence had taken place due to land disputes. The informant subsequently also lodged a complaint on 09.03.1999. It appears that on the strength of earlier statement made before the police, a report was submitted and the same was treated to be the FIR. In order to prove the charge(s) punishable under section 323 IPC., the prosecution examined three witnesses at the trial. Learned trial court on a consideration of materials placed on record found and held that charge(s) punishable under section 323 IPC stood proved and accordingly they were released under the Probation of Offenders Act in stead of awarding him - 2 - punishment. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the convicts (o.p.no.2 to 5) herein preferred the aforesaid appeal. Learned appellate court on a re-consideration of materials available on record, has fond that relevant witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. The alleged injured wife of the informant as well as his daughter were not produced at the trial to support the case. Learned trial court has also noticed that the police reports which formed the basis of the prosecution were not brought on record by the prosecution. The same was brought on record by the defence. In the backdrop of these facts/circumstances, emanating from the records, learned lower appellate court has observed as under in paragraph 9 of the judgment which reads thus: “9. Without any reason prosecution has neither examined one of the victim of this case Ainul Bano wife of the informant nor Akalia Khatoon, daughter of the informant nor the Doctor and nor the police officer who enquired into the case. Even in this case police started enquiry without submitted the report, received from Idrish Dewan in the court of C.J.M. Bettiah and started investigation without permission of the court, which is mandatory according to the provision of section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.” The conclusion/findings arrived at by the learned lower appellate court, in my view, cannot be said to be patently illegal and/or perverse meriting any interference. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )