IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.60 of 2008 MANI PRASAD Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJA RAM PRASAD ----- For the petitioner :Mr. Manoj Kr.Ambastha & : Mr. Praveen Kumar For the State : Mr.Mukeshwar Dayal For O.P.No.2 : Mr. Sudhir Singh Raghwanand ----------- 2. 13.01.2009 Heard. The petitioner-complainant takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.07.2008, passed in Trial no.166/08, whereby the learned trial court has absolved the o.p.no.2 herein of the charge punishable under section 420 of IPC. The learned trial court, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, has convicted the accused (o.p.no.2 herein) under sections 323 and 504 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is/was sufficient evidence on record to indicate that o.p.no.2 clandestinely obtained employment showing himself to be the son of Chedhi (father of the complainant). In the light of the said submission, this Court perused the material discussed by the learned trial court at paragraph 5. The reasonings assigned by the learned trial court in acquitting opp.party no.2 herein of the charge under - 2 - section 420 does not appear to be patently illegal. The Court has found that no material, much less convincing material, was brought on record to sustain the said charge. The present application seeking leave to appeal is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )