69 IN THE I1IGH ¢OURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Crimina! Revisicn Ne. 835 af 2000 Applicant Non-applicants 1 . Kalipad Das S/o Rasraj Das Caste Kéwat (Bangali) aged-31 years Rlo-Borgaon, A Polsce Station-Fharasgaon District Eastar (MR) Versus Praveen Singh Vadesha S/o Mohansingh Vadesha aged 36 years Rio Fhaiasgaon Ramji Sio Naradjé aged 33 years Fharasgaon Tarun Kumar Sana Slo Jitendra Sana Caste Bangaii aged 26 years R/o Borgaon Jitendra Sana Slo Panchanand Sana Caste Caste Bangaii aged 62 years R/oV Borgaon Ratan Kumar Sana S/o Rampad Sana Caste Bangali aged 18 years R/o Borgaon Akhil Devnath S/o A.K. Devnath Caste Bangali aged 50 years Rio Borgaon Jayant Sana Sio Khirod Sana Caste Bangali aged 23 years Borgaon Krishna Bandhu Devnath 8/0 Late Akshay Kumar Devnath Caste Bangali aged 32 years, R/o Borgaon, Police Station Fharasgaon, District Bastar (M.P.) bwN @NwO‘l 9. Madhya Pradesh Government. , rial CRIMINAL REVISION UIS 397 READ WITH SECTION 402 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J.) None for the applicant. Shri Sanjeev K. Agrawal, Panel lawyer for the State. O R D E R (Passed on 1“ April, 2008) 1. This revision is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 6.4.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kondagaon in Criminal Case No. 1271/96 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has acquitted the non-applicants No. 1 to 8 of the charges of sections 147, 294 and 506 (A) of the lndian Penal Code. No one is present on behalf. of the applicant when the matter is called out for hearing for the second time. s -2’ @ Order impugned (in ordersheet) is perused. According to the order impugned, summons trial case was pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Ciass from 1995 and after lapse of 5 years, the prosecution was not able to examine substantial witness. On failure of the prosecution, the order of acquittat was passed. This is a revision against the judgment of acquittal at the instance of private complainant. Scope of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in the judgment of acquittal tiled by private complainant is very limited and Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal unless there is manifest illegality committed by the Court. On failure of the prosecution for 5 years to examine the witnesses, the trial court has passed the order impugned. l do not find any illegality in the order impugned. Consequently, the revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/— 'T.P. Sharma Judge