IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42679 of 2007 RAM BABU MAHTO SON OF PRAGASH MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-ASHOGI, P.S. RIGA, DIST. SITAMARHI --- PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BISHUN MAHTO 3. HARI MATHO 4. CHULHAI MAHTO 5. BINDESHWAR MAHTO ALL SONS OF RAMDEO MAHTO 6. RAMDEO MAHTO, SON OF LATE GOBARDHAN MATHO ALL R/O VILL-SONAR, P.S. RIGA, DIST. SITAMARHI. --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 03 19.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2007, passed in Cr. Rev. no. 33 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.3, Sitamarhi, which was preferred by the complainant/petitioner of the case. It appears that learned Magistrate by order dated 18.12.2004, passed in complaint case no. C-1/1051/03 (Trial no. 941 of 2004) on a consideration of the materials adduced on behalf of the parties in terms of enquiry made under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) did not find prima facie case and accordingly dismissed the complaint petition in terms of Section 203 of the Code. Petitioner/complainant preferred the aforesaid revision which was dismissed. According to the complaint, the petitioner was deputed by the owner of the orchard to look after the orchard. It is alleged that the accused persons tried to cut and take away one sisam tree. 2 This was objected to whereafter he was assaulted. The complaint was lodged on 04.09.2003. The complainant examined himself on S.A. on 29.09.2003 and thereafter no other witness was examined. On 14.09.2004 one of the villagers was examined as a witness. On the request of the complainant production and examination of the witnesses was closed. Learned Magistrate was thus left with only the evidence of complainant on S.A. and the deposition of one witness. On a consideration of the materials on record, it was found that the allegations made in the complaint and the solemn affirmation of the complainant was at variance. This Court also found that in order to make out a prima facie case the complainant was required to examine the owner of the orchard or his son in order to first demonstrate his status as the care taker of the orchard in question. Having regard to the materials available on record, learned trial Court found that there was deficient materials on record and consequently, the complaint was rejected. Learned revisional Court reconsidered the submissions of the parties and concurred with the view taken by the learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides and going through the materials placed on record, this Court does not find any patent illegality which may render the orders impugned perfunctory. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)