IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.1 of 2009 JIVANAND SINGH Versus SHYAM MANDAL & ORS ----------- For the Complainant/Petitioner: Mr.Madhukar Krishna Sinha, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta,APP. 03. 27.01.2009 Heard. Complainant/petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial court ( Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Munger), in Case No. C. 644/2001 (Trial No. 283 of 2008). By the said impugned judgment the accuseds/ opposite party nos. 1 to 8 have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 147,323,379, 448,427 of the Penal Code. The complainant/petitioner, namely, Jivanand Singh (P.W.3) is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. As per the complaint, the dispute arose over blocking of the drain passing through plot no.314. The parties have raised claim over the said plot. According to the complaint/petitioner, the suit bearing Title suit No. 71/81 was filed by his father and certain restraint orders were passed in the said proceeding. On the contrary, the opposite parties/accuseds have produced the Khatiyan (Exhibit-A), to show that the land of Khesara No. 314 is ‘Gairmajarua’ land. In order to prove charge/charges, the complainant (P.W.3) examined as many as four witnesses including himself. The learned trial court, on appraisal of the evidence on record has 2 found that the evidence is discrepant, so far as charge of theft is concerned. Referring to the evidence of PW’s 1, 2, and 4 the learned trial court has also found that the allegation of assault is doubtful. In paragraph no.20 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial court, on appreciating the varied documents filed by the parties, came to a conclusion that the land in -question is ‘Gairmajarua’ land. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner tried to criticize the impugned judgment saying that subsequently permanent injunction is granted in the Title Suit filed by the complainant/petitioner. Be that as it may, the findings/reasonings recorded by the learned trial court in acquitting the accuseds/ opposite parties herein of the said charges in the backdrop of facts noticed above cannot be said to be patently illegal or perverse. This court finds no good ground to interfere in the matter. The application is accordingly dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)