IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.541 of 2008 MANISH KUMAR … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. RAM SEWAK RAM, 3. JALLANDHAR PRASAD, 4. JANAK KUMAR PRASAD, 5. SATISH KUMAR, 6. JITENDRA KUMAR, 7. RAVI SHANKAR KUMAR AND 8. ANIL KUMAR …….. Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 4.12.2008. N.H./ This revision has been preferred against the order of acquittal dated 4.3.2008 passed by Sri Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur in Trial No.460 of 2008. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no summon or warrant was served against the petitioner or any other witnesses and the evidence of witnesses was closed in haste and the opposite parties have been acquitted. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the case is summons trial. It was the duty of the prosecution to produce the witnesses. However, the prosecution did not adduce any evidence in three years. Charge had been explained on 30.3.2005 and the case was closed in 2008. Having regard to the facts and circumstances said above, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )