IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.151 of 2008 RAKESH KUMAR MALHOTRA….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANIL SINGH @ ANIL KUMAR SINGH ……Opposite parties ----------- 3. 25.11.2008. This Cr. Revision has been preferred against the order of acquittal dated 19.5.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sasaram (Rohtas) in Trial No. 956 of 2007. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below has not properly appreciated the evidence and the material available on the record and has wrongly acquitted opposite party no. 2 on the ground that it is a matter of civil dispute for which civil remedy is available. No criminal case is made out against the accused. It is further submitted that having regard to nature of accusation, apart from civil liability the petitioner can also be prosecuted under the Criminal Act. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire judgment including paragraphs 16 and 17. It appears that the court below has rightly acquitted the opposite parties. The prosecution is not able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Apart from it, the case is based on hire purchase agreement. The court below has rightly recorded that in such nature of cases the civil remedy should be availed for realization of the amount. Under the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for - 2 - interference in the impugned order of acquittal. Accordingly, this Cr. Revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)