IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.352 of 2008 MD.KASIM @ MIR KASIM ; PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD KASIM 3. NAIYAR 4. MD. KARU 5. NASIM 6. JASIM ; OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 2 28.11.2008 This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.1.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Araria in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 2005. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of sufficient materials and evidence the court below has not convicted the opposite parties under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and has released the accused persons, who are opposite parties herein, under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act for the offence committed under Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. However, on perusal of page 11 of the impugned judgment it would appear that there was no consistent evidence before the court below regarding commission of theft of cash and wrist watch, as a result of which the court below has acquitted the opposite parties of charge under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the grounds mentioned in the impugned judgment, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this application stands rejected. B.Jha (Ghanshyam Prasad) - 2 -