IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1202 of 2008 Kamal Narain Sah son of late Yogendra Sah r/o vill. Narma, P.S. Bahera, Dist. Darbhanga. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Guneshwar Singh S/o Late Deo Narain Singh 3. Dilip Singh S/o Khagan Singh 4. Murli Singh S/o Late Har Saheb Singh 5. Janak Singh S/o Late Ban Bali Singh ( Nos. 2 to 5 are R/o vill. Narma, P.S. Bahera, Dist. Darbhanga. ----- Opp.Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Das Advocate. For the State : Mr. P.K.Jha, APP. 02 25.06.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the informant of the case which gave rise to Trial no. 237 of 2008/ G.R.No. 13 of 1996, of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Benipur. As per the F.I.R., the accused persons herein were seen uprooting the bamboo clumps from the land of the petitioner, some of which were again rooted in the land belonging to accused Raju Singh (since dead). In order to prove the charge(s), the prosecution seems to have examined five witnesses. The investigating officer of the case was, however, not examined. Besides this, several documents were exhibited on behalf of both the parties. Learned trial Court on appraisal of Exhibits A, B, C, and D filed on behalf of the defence has recorded a finding that there was serious litigation going on between the parties, some of which relate to land. It has further found that the alleged seizure effected in the present case has not been proved. This fact shall be evident from a bare perusal of the 2 paragraph no. 20 of the judgment. In the back drop of these facts, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were evaluated and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge(s) beyond all reasonable doubts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any patent illegality in such consideration of the matter by the learned trial Court. Seen thus, this Court finds no merit in the application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)