IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.18 of 2010 Nageshwar Yadav son of late Gayanand Yadav R/o Village Dahgama P.S. Sikty,Dist. Araria……petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.Suryanand Paswan son of Musharu Paswan 3.Firoz Paswan son of Musharu Pasan 4.Rajendra Paswan son of Lakeshwar Paswan R/o village Saidabad Dahgama P.S. Sikty, Dist. Araria …..opposite parties. ------------------ 2 22.12.2011 The informant petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C-5 in cri. Appeal no. 71 of 2009 by which the conviction and sentence dated 8.5.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in G.R. No. 1107 of 2003 arising out of Sikty P.S. Case No. 36 of 2009 has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey A.P.P. for the State and perused the impugned order as well as trial court judgment. On perusal of the aforesaid documents it appears that the learned appellate court has considered the evidence adduced before the trial court and has come to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in right manner and the learned appellate court has considered the evidence and has come to the conclusion and held that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the judgment of the trial court haws been set aside. I do not find any ground to interfere with the 2 impugned order. The petition is dismissed. M.Rahman (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)