IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.51 of 2009 AJIT KUMAR, SON OF RAMJEE PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KADILPUR, POLICE STATION- TALHARA, DISTRICT- NALANDA. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHAILENDRA KUMAR, SON OF CHANDESHWAR RAJAK, RESIDENT OF MALAH BIGHA, P.S. ISLAMPUR, DISTRICT- NALANDA. 3. AWADHESH PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAMCHANDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ISLAMPUR, MOHALLA- HANUMANGANJ, POLICE STATION- ISLAMPUR, DISTRICT- NALANDA. ------ Opposite Parties. ----------- 3 11.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has moved this Court against the judgment passed in Complaint Case No. 510C of 1998/Trial No. 1461 of 2009 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hilsa acquitting the opposite parties of charges under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has not considered that the defence has also not been able to prove their case that they had paid for the T.V. and V.C.R. which was allegedly in the possession of the opposite parties. In my opinion the complainant has to succeed on the basis of his own case. The Court below has found that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had rented V.C.R. and T.V. to the opposite parties and that the 2 opposite parties were not paying rent to him. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had rented the V.C.R. and T.V. set to run a small video hall in the village. The opposite parties should pay rent in lieu of the V.C.R. and T.V. rented out to the opposite parties. The Court below after considering the evidence has found that the evidence is insufficient to show that the said V.C.R. and T.V. set were rented out by the petitioner to the opposite parties. The Court below has also considered that there is no document to show that the petitioner had a licence to run small video hall in the village and has also taken into consideration the fact that there is no documentary evidence to prove the allegations. In my view the reasonings given by the Court below are good grounds for acquitting the opposite parties. There is no scope for interference in the judgment impugned. This special leave to appeal is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)