IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1688 of 2009 Ganga Prasad Rai, son of Late Jhingur Rai, resident of village- Rusulpur Fatah, P.S.-Goraul, District- Vaishali. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Gopal Rai, son of Ganga Rai, resident of village- Rusulpur Fatah, P.S.- Goraul, District- Vaishali. ….Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 3. 01.12.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 11.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, V, Vaishali at Hajipur in Cr. Appeal No.115/1997 by which the appeal has been dismissed so far the petitioner is concerned and the appeal has been allowed so far other three accused are concerned. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. It appears that an official complaint dated 9.03.1994 was registered as complaint case no.C2- 91/1994 was under Section 188 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated by the complainant (S.D.M., Mahua) against the accused 2 vide case no.122 over one peace of land measuring 5 decimals as mentioned in the complaint petition. On 20.02.1993, the land in dispute was attached under the prohibitory order and the notices were served upon the parties on 23.02.1993. The parties approached the court on 17.03.1993. The accused in full knowledge of the notice of the prohibitory order intentionally and willfully disobeying the prohibitory order fixed Nad and Khuta over the land and cut wheat crops from there. After trial, all the accused were found guilty under Section 188 I.P.C. and instead of awarding any punishment, they were directed to be released on furnishing bond of Rs.500/-each for a period of one year to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour, failing which, they will have to appear before the court to receive punishment vide order dated 26.08.1997. Thereafter, all the accused preferred Cr. Appeal No.115/1997 against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 26.08.1997. After hearing both the parties, it has been found that notices of the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. had been served upon the petitioner on 23.02.1993 and as such, he got the information, even thereafter, the order passed by the 3 learned Magistrate has been violated and the notices on others were served. As such, the other co-accused have been acquitted. After considering the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State as also on perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court, it appears that the evidence has been considered by both the courts below and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. The learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court has found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 188 I.P.C. and instead of giving him any punishment, he has been released on furnishing bond of Rs.500/-. The bond has already been deposited. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)