IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.44 of 2009 1. KUNJ LAL SAH SON OF JULUM SAH 2. VIJAY LAL SAH SON OF MOTILAL SAH 3. MADAN LAL SAH, SON OF KUNJLAL SAH 4. RAMJYOTI DEVI WIFE OF KUNJLAL SAH 5. AMAR KUMAR SAH, @ AMAR LAL SAH SON OF KUNJ LAL SAH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-BANSGHAT, TOLA- HASANPUR, P.S.- CHAKIA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioners : Mr. P.K. Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 2 23.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 6.12.2008 passed in Cr. Appeal no. 44 of 2000/ 79 of 2002 whereby while upholding the order of conviction recorded under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, the sentence has been modified and in place of substantive punishment for 07 days, the petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- as fine having default clause. Learned Trial Court found them guilty for having violated the prohibitory order made by the S.D.O. Sikrahna . Thus on the strength of official complaint, they were proceeded against. Learned trial court on a consideration of the materials placed on record by the parties came to the conclusion (as would appear from paragraph 12) that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge. Learned appellate court rescanned the evidence and 2 considered the arguments made on behalf of the parties and thereby came to the conclusion that the order of conviction do not require any interference. However, on the materials appearing from the record including the alleged compromise petition filed on behalf of the parties modified the sentence in the manner stated hereinabove. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the no independent witness was examined. It is next contended that the complainant was also not examined in this case. It is next contended that petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not the parties to Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. proceeding. Learned APP, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It is contended that in a case where the prosecution is launched on the strength of official complaint, non- examination of the complainant can not be said to be fatal particularly when the accused (petitioner) had filed their show- causes before the S.D.M., which was considered and rejected whereafter only the official complaint was lodged. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. In my view, no patent illegality has been committed by the Court below passing the order. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )