CRIMINAL APPEAL No.17 OF 1993 (U/S) Appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.12.1985 passed in Complaint Case No. 481/C of 1983 by Sri U.S. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. 1. KUMARI AMITA DUTTA, Daughter of Late Khirod Prasad Dutta, Resident of LIC Flat No. 8/271, Lohia Nagar, P.S.-Kankarbagh, Patna-20. ……(Complainant) --(Appellant) Versus 1. DEO SHANKAR PRASAD, Son of Late Gaya Prasad, Assistant Engineer, Resident of LIC flat No.-8/281, Lohia Nagar, P.S.-Kankarbagh, Patna-20. ……(Accused)- (Respondents) ----------- For the Appellant : M/s Sujata Mukherjee, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Baban Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ram Swarup Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr. S.N. Singh, Adv. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ************** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 03.12.1985 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 481/C of 1983 for the offences under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that on 17.11.1983 the accused persons who were - 2 - residing in the third floor of the same flat came to her house and abused her due to which her esteem in the society had been lowered. The defence of the Opposite Party was that on account of earlier dispute this false and malicious prosecution had been instituted. The prosecution in all seven witnesses out of whom PW 5 is the complainant herself. The defence exhibited certain documents to show that there was a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. pending between the parties. The trial court in his judgment of acquittal has noted that there was earlier dispute between the parties and the complainant was present in Court while the other witnesses were being examined which showed her tenacity in prosecuting the opposite party. Their evidence is heresay but did not disclose the date of occurrence. From the evidence of the witnesses it appeared that in fact the complainant contrary to the agreement had in fact illegally occupied the ground floor of the Housing Board and when she was sought to be evicted from the previous the present case was - 3 - instituted. On an inquiry also the fact of illegal occupation of certain persons had been revealed. After having gone through the judgment of acquittal and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that the ingredients of Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied in the facts of the case. For this reason, I do not find it fit case to interfere with the judgment of acquittal and resultantly the appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court Dated 30th November, 2009 NAFR/Vikash. (Anjana Prakash, J.)