IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1289 of 2008 SUNIL PANDEY @ NARENDRA PANDAY , son of Rameshwar Panday, resident of vill.-Nawadih, P.S.-Karakat, Distt.-Rohtas at Sasaram-----Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR . 2. Rajendra Prasad Sinha, Officer Inchgarge, Dehri Town Police Station, P.S.- Dehri(Town), Distt.-Rohtas-------------------------------Opp. Parties. ----------- 9. 19.11.2009 Heard the parties. Petitioner is an accused of G.R. case no. 950 of 2003 which was decided on 14.9.2007 giving T.R. no.674 of 2007. By order dated 14.9.2007 this petitioner was acquitted finding no evidence against him. That was challenged by filing an appeal which was decided on 1.7.2008. Lacuna which was detected by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, is that on 30.4.2007 summons was issued through D.I.G but never complied. So case was found in which prosecution was not given sufficient opportunity. On the other hand, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that charge was framed in the case on 27.4.2005. In all 17 dates were given to the prosecution. So, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, observation of the Sessions Judge is not correct. No opportunity should be given to the prosecution but learned counsel failed to reply the lacuna detected by the learned Sessions Judge that direction made by order dated 30.4.2007 was never complied and this single point has been taken to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal. 2 So, I find no illegality committed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in passing the order impugned. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sudip ( Mandhata Singh,J )