IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13645 of 2009 MANZOOR ALAM @ MD.MAZARUL …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MALLEHUDDIN @ MASLLEHUDDIN …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :Mr.Nadimul Hasan For the State :Mr. J.K.Singh No.1, APP ----------- 02. 24.11.2010 This application has been filed seeking restoration of Cr. Revision No.1581 of 2007 which stood dismissed for non- prosecution by order dated 12.11.2008. Aforesaid revision application was preferred by the present petitioner(informant) aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.05.2007 recorded in Sessions Trial No.460 of 2001, whereby the accused persons were tried and acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under sections 323/34, 307/34, 379/34 and 427 of the I.P.C. This Court permitted the petitioner to make submission on merit in connection with Revision Application No.1581 of 2007 to which he agreed. Having regard to the aforesaid stand of the petitioner, this Court is persuaded to allow the restoration application being Cr.Misc. No.13645 of 2009. Accordingly, order dated 12.11.2008 passed in Cr.Revision No.1581 of 2007 is hereby recalled. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The informant (P.W.6) is the igniter of the criminal proceeding which gave rise to Sessions Trial No.460/2001(State vs. Mallehuddin & Ors.). Learned trial court on a consideration 2 of the evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that prosecution has not been able to prove the charge(s) beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. As per the allegation, the petitioner(informant) claimed to be Bataidar of land appertaining to plot nos.123/98, 130/104 and 93/57 measuring a total area of 54 decimals and 6 decimals respectively situate in moza Bagharia. The prosecution case is that he had grown wheat and Masoor crops over those lands. On 19.03.1998 at 11 A.M., some of the accused persons put his „Jhopdi‟ on fire and destroyed the same. It is also the allegation that they started harvesting the wheat and Masoor crops and thereafter fled away. Eight witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution to prove charge(s). Learned trial court in paragraph 8 of the judgment has assigned reasons for disbelieving the allegations constituting offence punishable under sections 307 and 436 IPC. In paragraph 9, learned trial court has observed as under: “The case of the prosecution that the informant is claiming the disputed land which is under khata no.6 plot no.123/98, 130/104 area 54 decimals and 93/52 area 6 decimals on the basis of bataidari case no.13/97 and proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. no.104/98 but no any order of any court is produced before this court. On the other hand on behalf of defence one C.C. of Sale Deed has been exhibited which is marked Ext. B and Govt. rent receipt which are marked Ext. A and A/a. From perusal of the said document it appears that the accused Samid has purchased the disputed land in the year 1997 and he is paying the rent to the Government(vide Ext. A and A/a. this case has been instituted in the year 1998 after purchase of the disputed land by the accused. From the entire evidence of prosecution it is not established that the informant (P.W.6) is the owner of the land rather witnesses have said that the accused persons grown the crop on the disputed land. From the entire evidence as discussed above I find that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges u/s 323/34, 307/34, 379/34, 427 3 and 435/34 I.P.C. against the accused persons.” This Court after hearing the parties and on perusal of materials on record including the impugned order is the of the view that learned trial court based on evaluation of evidence brought on record has taken a view which cannot be said to be perverse and/or perfunctory. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )