IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1397 of 2007 BIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA SON OF LATE RAMAWTAR SHARMA --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BISHESHWAR PASWAN SON OF CHALITTAR PASWAN 3. DAMODAR PASWAN SON OF BAHTU PASWAN 4. SONIA DEVI W/O BIKAU PASWAN 5. BIKAU PASWAN SON OF CHALITTAR PASWAN 6. MUNESHWAR PASWAN SON OF TETAR PASWAN 7. SUMITRA DEVI W/O BHOLA PASWAN 8. RAM SWARATH PASWAN SON OF RAM BHAROS PASWAN 9. BINDESHWARI PASWAN SON OF LAXMI PASWAN 10. MAHENDRA PASWAN SON OF BHAROS PASWAN 11. CHHANNU PASWAN SON OF CHALITTAR PASWAN 12. UTTAM PASWAN SON OF SOMAN PASWAN 13. SHEETAL PASWAN SON OF CHALITTER PASWAN 14. UPENDRA PASWAN SON OF LAKHAN PASWAN 15. BIJENDRA PASWAN SON OF BALESHWAR PASWAN. -- OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 03 03.09.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the igniter of the criminal proceeding giving rise to Trial no. 532 of 2007. He is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court whereby accuseds (opposite party nos. 2 to 15) were acquitted of diverse charge(s) including one under Section 379 of the Penal Code. Prosecution case precisely is that on 17.09.92 in the morning at about 4 a.m. the accuseds were found assembled at the field of the informant (PW8). They were seen harvesting the maize and jute crops which was objected to by the informant whereafter he was captivated and confined and the accused persons forcibly harvested the crops, put them in bundles and thereafter carried them away from the place of occurrence. 10 PWs were examined at the trial in order to prove the prosecution case. On a consideration of the materials on record, learned trial Court has found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge(s) beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. It appears that the occurrence had taken place on 17.09.92 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 21.09.92. The delay has been tried to be explained by the prosecution that initially an application was lodged before the Superintendent of Police. It appears that both the parties filed documents to support their case that the land(s) in question belonged to them. Learned trial Court has found that a purcha was already issued in respect of the disputed land in favour of the accuseds of the case. Litigation relating to the said issuance of purcha was pending in the Court of law. In the backdrop of these facts learned trial Court has recorded his conclusion in paragraph no. 10 of the impugned judgment, which, in my view, cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)