IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1200 of 2007 1. THE ZILA PARISHAD MADHEPURA THRU. The Chief Executive Officer-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhepura 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Madhepura-cum- Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhepura. Versus 1. VIJAY KUMAR SINGH S/o late Ramanand Prasad R/o Vill.Mavya, P.S. Maker, Dist. Chapra at present District Engineer, Zila Parishad Madhepura 2. The State of Bihar ------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Binita Singh. For the State : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma For the O.P. NO.2 : Mr. Ranjit Jha. --- 4/ 22.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision application is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2007 which was filed by the Opposite Party No.1 against the Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2007 passed in G.R. Case No. 788 of 2005, T.R. No. 1810 of 2007 (arising out of Madhepura P.S. Case No. 203 of 2005) passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Madhepura. In brief Opposite Party No.1 is alleged for misappropriation of the fund given to him for construction of operation theater of Arajpur Health Centre and Health Centre of Chausa. The whole work was to be done under the Scheme Sunischit Gramin Rojgar Yojna 2001-2002. One Satish Chandra 2 Srivastava was its Executive Agent. There was allegation that no work was being done. So, this petitioner was directed to hand over the amount. The total amount was Rs. 13,86,925/- but he did not return the amount and specifically it is alleged that the amount was misappropriated by Opposite Party No.1. After conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 406/34 and 409/34 of the I.P.C., same was challenged by filing an appeal by Opposite Party No.1 vide Cr. Appeal No. 6 of 2007 which is allowed and Opposite Party No.1 is acquitted of every charge made against him vide Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2007. Acquittal of this petitioner is questioned on its ground of legality, correctness and propriety by filing this revision application. A single point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that allegation leveled by the informant though is established but not relied by the Sessions Judge, but on merit the witness who went against the prosecution case could not be explained. All the prosecutions have separately been scrutinized and discussed by the learned Sessions Judge. P.Ws. No. 1, 2 and 3 are the villagers stating completion of work entrusted in the case. P.Ws. No. 4 and 5 turned hostile without making any statement to favour the 3 prosecution even in cross-examination. P.W. No.6 though states that Opposite Party No.1 was asked to refund the money but he accepts that work was started. So, it was difficult to return the money. In the specific word, he states that advance was for 25% of the work and 40% of the work was done by the Agency. Informant is P.W. No.7 though states favours the prosecution case but admits about non- production of relevant documents showing non- completion of work. P.W. No. 9 is I.O. of the case. He has not gone on the spot for physical verification of the work done. P.W.8 is Head Clerk of the District Board states about giving of the advance money to Opposite Party No. 1 but ignorance of the fact if work was done or not as having no concern with field work. Thus, I find every corner has been touched by the learned Sessions Judge and is explained including circumstance and material collected in the case and then only impugned order is passed suffers with no illegality even irregularity. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.)