IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.17 of 2009 PREM KUMAR Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. DILIP KUMAR ----------- 2. 10.02.2009 Heard Mr. Harendra Tiwary in support of the application The complainant-petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5th December,2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.356(C)/1996. By the said judgment, the accused has been acquitted of the charge (s) framed under sections 448 and 379 IPC. It is to be stated here and now that in the complaint the petitioner made two accuseds who are grandfather and uncle of the complainant. The learned trial court, on appraisal of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, has come to a conclusion that on the date of occurrence the shop of which the accuseds are said to have trespassed by unlocking the lock, was not in possession of the complainant. It appears to be an admitted position that earlier the said shop was allotted in the name of one of the co-accuseds of the present case,namely, Devendra Prasad Sinha (grandfather of the complainant). Aforesaid Devendra Prasad Sinha died during the pendency of trial and, as such, only uncle of the complainant remained as accused in the present case. The court below has also taken into account the fact that for possession of the shop in question the complainant has already filed a title suit. - 2 - Mr. Tiwary, appearing on behalf of the complainant, admits before this Court that, in fact, a title suit being Title Suit No. 59 of 1996, relating to possession/dispossession of the shop in question has already been filed. In the background of these facts, the learned trial court has found and held that the charges have not been proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. This Court does not find any patent illegality in consideration of the matter by the learned trial court meriting interference. The application seeking leave to appeal stands dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )