IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.632 of 2009 MUNNA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. CHANDESHWAR SINGH 3. RAJ NARAYAN SINGH … OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 02. 24.11.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is the informant and is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.01.2009, passed in Complaint Case No. C.42/98(Trial No.183/08/G.R.Case No.65/98). On conclusion of investigation, final form was submitted, and o.p. nos. 2 and 3 were not sent up. The court differed with it and proceeded with the trial where seven witnesses were examined. Learned court below found that there is no cogent, convincing and trustworthy evidence on record. It has also found that both the parties are agnates and the stolen thresher machine was found deserted on a piece of land for which there was dispute between the parties. I have perused the impugned judgment. Paragraph 14 is the analysis of the materials on record made by learned trial court. In my view, learned court below has taken a view which seems to be a possible/reasonable view based on materials on record and, as such, cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory meriting interference. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )