IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.928 of 2008 Rabindra Nath Singh son of late Ramlala Singh, resident of village Kakan, Tola Mazgama, P.S. Jokihat, Dist-Araria. Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Ramsharan Singh son of Late Tarulal Khan (Singh.) 3. Bhoga Nand Singh son of Pawan Lal Singh. 4. Harniya Devi Wife of Ramsharan Singh. All Residents of Village kakan, Tola Mazgama P.S. Jokihat, District- Araira. ----------- 3 05.07.2011 Heard Mr. Sarangdhar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional P.P for the State and Mr. Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. The complainant-informant has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 26th of July, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C II Araria in Cr. Appeal No. 4 of 1998 by which the judgment and order dated 24.12.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class in G.R. No. 1655 of 1992 has been set aside . The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 1182 of 1992 which was later on registered as Jokihat P.S. Case No. 375 of 1992 for the 2 offence punishable under Section 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-opposite party. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on 19.10.1981 the complainant- petitioner purchased land in the name of his son in presence of all the accused persons and father of the accused, thereafter the petitioner came in possession of the land in dispute bearing R.S. Khata no. 801 plot no. 3233 area 25 decimlas and he was paying the rent and getting rent receipt from the State of Bihar. On 30.08.1992 when the complainant was putting fertilizer in the crop of the said land the accused persons came there and threatened him to dispossess him. The accused No. 1, Ram Saran Singh and told that prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainant he had executed sale deed in favour of his wife and his wife has sold the same in favour of accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 and threatened the informant-complainant to dispossess him. The accused also threatened several times. It is further alleged that the accused Ramsharan Singh conspired with 3 accused and had executed registered sale deed on 1 area 4.10.1881 in favour of his wife Smt. Harniya Devi for 15 decimals of the land of the same Khata and Plot. It was further stated that the accused Ramsharan Singh had 25 decimals of land and Khata No. 801 and Plot No. 3233 was recorded in the name of Bachhilal Khan having 8 Anas share. In a nutshell the case of the petitioner is that the accused had made conspiracy to dispossess him. After trial the accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 320 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo R.I for two years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- each. The accused filed Cr. Appeal No. 4 of 1998 and by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate has been set aside. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite parties are bent upon to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question even after execution of the sale deed, Ext. 2. The learned accused apposite party submitted that the complainant has been 4 examined as P.W. 5. in the aforesaid case and in paragraph 9 of the cross examination he has admitted that the land was purchased by him is in his possession and he had got sale deed executed on the basis of possession of the executants he remained in possession of his purchased land for the last 12 years and he is still in possession of the same. He has also admitted that in the sale deed 12.5 decimals of land was given in Jabta he was not disposed by any one. The sale deed of the executants Ext. 2 also shows that in case of dispossession by the co-sharer of the executants of the sale deed the purchaser would be entitled to take land from the land given on the Japta i.e.,12 decimals land of Plot No. 3265. There is no evidence on record that all the accused persons had ever conspired to commit any offence or to cause any wrongful loss to the complainant-petitioner. The learned counsel for the accused-opposite party has also stated that the petitioner is in possession of the aforesaid land and opposite party will not disturb his possession. 5 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the learned Appellate Court has considered all these aspects and has also found that the petitioner is in possession of the land which was purchased in favour of his minor son. The petitioner is still in possession of the land mentioned in the sale deed Ext. 2. The learned Appellate Court has found that the possession of petitioner has not been challenged in any way by the accused and the petitioner has not suffered any loss he is still in possession of the entire land purchased by him. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.. In the result this petition is dismissed. Prakash ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)