IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.787 of 2007 LALLAN PRASAD GUPTA, S/o Late Gurucharan Sao, R/o Mohalla-Daldali Bazar, P.S.-Chapra Town, District- Saran ……..Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ajit Kumar, S/o Sri Mohan Prasad, R/o Mohalla-Mauna, Ward no. 11, P.S.-Chapra Town, District- Saran. 3. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Sri Bachcha Prasad, R/o Mohalla- Daldali Bazar, P.S.-Chapra Town, District- Saran …..Opposite Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. Madan Mohan Prasad, Advocate Mr. Manindra Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Anurag Pandey, Advocate. ----------- 5 25-06-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner, who is informant of Chapra Town P.S.Case No. 92 of 1997 instituted under section 364 IPC, is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran in S.T. NO. 90/2000. Petitioner lodged an F.I.R. on 5.4.1997 alleging, inter alia, that accused Ajit Kumar (O.P. No. 2) came to his house and asked him to send his son Manish with him to go to Delhi where he was allegedly working from before. On such request, the son of the petitioner 2 namely Manish Kumar was allowed to go with the accused Ajit Kumar. Thereafter son of the petitioner never returned to village. When queries were made certain explanations were given by the accuseds. On the strength of aforesaid allegation, the case was tried by the learned court below. The prosecution examined few witnesses to support the aforesaid charge(s). The defence also adduced evidence by examining few witnesses. The accused had taken a plea that the informant was in the habit of lodging such cases of abduction/kidnapping of his son Manish Kumar and used to bargain with the accused(s) of the case and after realizing negotiated amount, petitions of compromise used to be filed. Keeping this defence in the backdrop, learned trial court has evaluated the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The learned court below has noted that filing of such a case against other accused persons by the informant, has been admitted by the informant himself during cross-examination. The trial court has found that no independent witness has come to support the prosecution case. Upon appraisal of the evidence on record, learned court below has come to the 3 conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge(s)/allegations beyond all reasonable doubts and resultantly the order of acquittal was recorded. On perusal of the judgment impugned and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the view that there is no patent illegality in the consideration of the matter by the learned court below. This application is accordingly dismissed. Sujit ( Kishore K.Mandal, J. )