IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.434 of 2008 UMESH PRASAD SINGH S/O- SRI DASRATH PRASAD SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE BABHANBIGHA, P.S.- BARBIGHA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MINTU SINGH, SON OF RAJNITI SINGH 3. RAJNITI SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM LAL SINGH 4. ASHWINI KUMAR SINGH 5. CHUNCHUN SINGH, 6. LADDU SINGH NOS 4 TO 6 SONS OF SADANAND SINGH 7. SADANAND SINGH SON OF LATE SANTOSHI SINGH 8. MIRTUNJAY SINGH, SON OF RAM NARESH SINGH 9. NIRANJAN SINGH, SON OF LATE HARO SINGH. 10. NEEL KAMAL SINGH, SON OF RAMESHWAR SINGH 11. CHANDAN SINGH, SON OF UPENDRA SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- BABHAN BIGHA, P.S.- BARBIGHA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA. 12. CHUNCHUN SINGH, SON OF BAL KISHORE SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE NIRPUR, P.S.- BIND, DISTRICT- NALANDA AT PRESENT BABHAN BIGHA ROAD, P.S.- BARBIGHA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA. 13. RAMA KANT SINGH, SON OF RAM RATAN SHARMA, R/O- MOHALLA KHANDAKPAR, P.S.- BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT- NALANDA. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Matloob Rab, APP For the O.P. no. 2 : Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate. ----------- 4 28.10.2010 Both sides present. Informant has filed the present case questioning the sustainability and/or legality of the order impugned whereby some of the co-accuseds facing trial (O.P. nos. 3 to 13) have been acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under Sections 302, 149, 452 and 389 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, handed in a copy of the order dated 2.7.2008 passed in Govt. Appeal (DB) no. 25 of 2 2008 (The State of Bihar versus Ashwani Kumar Singh & Ors) and submitted that the Government appeal preferred against the present judgment has already been considered and dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, the copy is taken on record and marked “X”. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that in view of amended provision of the Code, the petitioner shall have right to file appeal. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, on the other hand, controverts the aforesaid stand of the petitioner in view of the date from which the aforesaid amendment had taken effect. Be that as it may, since the Government appeal arising out of the present judgment and order has already been dismissed, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the present judgment and order. The application has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )