IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.38288 OF 2009 JAI BHARAT SINHA @ JAI BHARAT SINGH, SON OF LATE PURAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOUJA SENDUARI, POLICE STATION SADAR HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ********* 2 12/11/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has erred in not taking cognizance in this case. Referring to the evidence of the witnesses, learned Counsel submits that Kusheshwar Singh has stated that the payment was made for nine segments whereas the complainant had worked for ten segments during the election. It is stated that accused is said to have slapped the complainant. The other witness produced on behalf of the complainant is Krishna Devi. She has deposed that payment was made for only nine segments whereas work was taken for ten segments. This witness does not support the second part of the occurrence, i.e. the allegation of slapping the complainant. The Court below has considered the evidence and while examining the witnesses, asked the witness to produce the document to show that he had worked for nine/ten segments. The complainant could not file any 2 document to support his case. The Court below on facts did not find the case to be true. The Court has also found that no steps have been taken to obtain the order of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute the Opposite Party/accused in this case. The Court below has thus refused to take cognizance both on facts and on law. The petitioner thereafter moved in revision. The Revisional Court has also supported the findings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. I see no illegality in the order of the Revisional Court i.e. the Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)