CRIMINAL REVISION No.387 OF 1999 (Against the judgment and order dated 9.4.1999, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,Civil Court, Danapur in Paliganj Police Station case no. 73 of 1989,GR no. 483 of 1989, Tr No. 228 of 1999) ---------- SHIVA SHANKER PD.SINGH ----Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----Respondents P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH S.P.Singh,J. The instant revision application is directed against order dated 9.4.1999, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Civil Court, Danapur in Paliganj Police Station case no. 73 of 1989, GR no. 483 of 1989, Tr No. 228 of 1999, by which he has acquitted all the accused persons (opp parties 2 to 5) from the charges under sections 148,447,379 and 411 of the I.P.C. The prosecution case in short as made out on written statement of one Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh (petitioner ) is as follows:- The informant alleged that in the morning of 25.3.1989 at about 8.30 am one Shyam Bihari Singh, now dead along with his four sons (opposite party no. 2 to 5) armed with deadly weapons entered into his field bearing plot no. 2386, Khata no. 652 of village Ankuri, Tola Kasba Mohablipur measuring 69 decimal and started looting the standing crop of wheat and Barsim grass. After looting the crop, the accused went towards the field of Colonel Krishna Murari Singh and also looted crops of plot no. 1349, 1389 and 1392 of also Khata No. 652 of same village having respective areas of 63, 93 and 90 decimals. The aforesaid occurrence was witnessed by one Sri Ram Lagan Ram, Paramhans - 2 - Prasad Singh, Ram Naresh Ram, Ritan Singh and others. On the basis of fard beyan (exhibit 1) of the informant, Paliganj Police Station case no. 73 of 1989, under sections 147,148,379,447,427 and 149 I.P.C. was registered. Police after investigation submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections as well as section 411 of the I.P.C. Charges were framed under sections 148,447,379 and 411 I.P.C. During trial, Shyam Bihari Singh, father of opp party no 2 to 5 died, who faced trial. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PW 1 Ashok Kumar, PW 2 Ram Lagan Rai, PW 5 Jagarnath Prasad, PW 6 Ritan Singh, PW 7 Brij Nandan Prasad Singh, PW 8 Paramhans Singh are eye witnesses, PW 10 Sheik Noor Mohammad is the Investigating officer of the case. PW 3 Umesh Paswan and PW 4 Bikrma Rai are formal witnesses, who have proved seizure list. One Bihari Lal has been examined as court witness being PW 11. Besides, adducing oral evidence, prosecution brought various documents on record, Exhibit 1 is fard beyan of informant, Exhibit 2 is FIR, Exhibit 3 is seizure list, Exhibit 4 is certified copy of sale certificate and delivery of possession in Execution case no. 601 of 1997, Exhibit no.5 is order passed by rent settlement officer in Rent fixation case no 3368/1938. Exhibit 6 is order dated 23.1.1939, passed by settlement officer in Rent deduction case, Exhibit 7 is final decree passed in TPS no. 65 of 1957-59, Exhibit 8 is order dated 3.3.1989. Exhibit 9 and 9/1 is tenant’s register II in favour of petitioner with respect to PO land. The defence examined DW 1 Ram Chandra Singh, a lawyer’s clerk to prove Exhibits L, L/1 and L/2, and some more documents marked as Ext A to Q. The petitioner submits that it is apparent from oral as well as - 3 - documentary evidence produced on behalf of prosecution that the land from which crops were looted belongs to informant. He asserts that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case. He submits that the defence has produced forged rent receipt which has been marked as exhibits L1 L/1 and L/2 to put forth a false defence. Exhibits L and L/1 were issued in pen of Ram Kumar Pathak on 12.3.1965 and L/2 issued on 16.3.1978 by Bihari Lal. The petitioner who is the informant of the case filed an application on 23.3.1996 under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an enquiry into the genuineness of those rent receipts. On the prayer of the informant the court summoned the authors and makers of the exhibits in question one Bihari Lal, the author of Exhibit L2 and was examined on 25.4.1996 as court witness. The aforesaid Bihari Lal did not state that exhibit L/2 was issued by him nor has he signed the same. The petitioner asserts that by order dated 8.1.1998 the learned trial court had observed that it will consider the aforesaid application filed under section 340 Cr.P.C. at the time of final hearing of the case. Learned counsel for the opp party submits that land belongs to them. He produced the copy of the Khatiyan to show that the aforesaid rent does not pertain to village Ankuri but the same is located in village Mahablipur. He then submits that prosecution has not been able to pin point the field specifically from which crops were cut or looted. Learned counsel for opp parties submits that a Court should not interfere with judgment of acquittal after ten years of passing of such order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the court in case of Kapil Prajapat Vs the State of Bihar, reported in 1999(3) PLJR 191. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at - 4 - this stage he is not seeking reversal of judgment of acquittal rather he is aggrieved as trial court did not dispose of his application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though the trial court has observed in its order dated 8.1.1998, that it would dispose of the petition at the time of hearing of the case. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though there is sufficient material in support of his claim that the rent receipts produced by the opp parties were forged documents still the trial court did not pass any order in relation to initiating an enquiry. In view of nature of relief which the petitioner seeks, this Court is not interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. However, in view of the fact that the trial court itself by order dated 8.1.1998 observed that it would consider the application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at or before the time of pronouncing judgment, the court ought to have passed order one way or the other on the aforesaid application. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the application filed by the petitioner. The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate for disposing of the application whether the petitioner has made out any case for making an enquiry under section 340 Cr.P.C. or not. With the aforesaid observation, this case is remitted to the trial court for the aforesaid limited purpose. Dated, the 13th Apr, 09 N.A.F.R/ Shashi. Patna High Court (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J).