IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.90 of 2009 Madan Prasad, son of Late Bhrigun Prasad, village Mainidih, PS Kateya, District Gopalganj – Petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Maniraj Baitha, son of Ajir Baitha, 3. Anil Baitha, son of Dudhnath Baitha, 4. Saroj Baitha, son of Maniraj Baitha, 5. Motichand Baitha, son of Bijay Baitha – Opposite parties. 2 17.9.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed against the judgment and order passed in Complaint Case No. 1390/1994/Trial No. 207/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Gopalganj acquitting the opposite parties of the offences committed under sections 447, 379 and 427 of the Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the opposite parties cut a tree from the land which belonged to the petitioner. The defence of the opposite parties is that the land belonged to them and as such it was wrongly alleged that the petitioner was in possession of the land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to minor contradiction in the statements of the witnesses the court below has acquitted the opposite parties. On perusal of the judgment I find that some of the witnesses could not describe the boundary of the disputed land which proves that they had actually not seen the occurrence. Considering the entire judgment I find that the reasonings given by the court are quite justified as it has been found that the entire dispute is of a civil nature with respect to possession of the land in question. 2 For the reasons aforesaid this application is dismissed. However, it is quite obvious that the right of the petitioner with respect to possession of the land in question will not be affected by the order of acquittal. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)