IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1130 of 2007 Jagdish Prasad son of Sri Radhey Mahto, r/o vill. Maranchi (Nepal Tola) P.S. Maranchi, Dist. Patna. -----Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Krishnandan Mahto, son of Shyam Mahto 3. Dasrath Mahto, son of Shyam Mahto. 4. Ganga Mahto son of Ram Gulam Mahto 5. Raja Mahto son of Ram Gulam Mahto. 6. Mathura Mahto, son of Shyam Mahto. All are R/o vill. Maranchi ( Nepal Tola), P.S.Maranchi, Dist. Patna. --- Opp.Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. Hare Krishna Prasad, Advocate. For the Opp.Parties : Mr. Pramod Manbansh, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP ----------- 03 06.07.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, State and Opposite parties. Petitioner is informant of Hathidah P.S. Case no. 16 dated 23.05.1978, instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149,448, 324, 323 and 307 of the Penal Code. He is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Barh in Sessions Trial no. 148 of 1979. Learned trial Court in paragraph no.5 of the judgment has observed as under:- “5. It appears from the case record that the charges against the accused persons were framed on 24.3.1999 and vide order dated 09.12.2002 the prosecution evidence was closed and in between no evidence brought on record by the prosecution side. It also transpires that against said order of closure of evidence has also been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 21.02.2007 passed in Cr. Revision No. 208/2005.” Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an 2 application was filed on 24.05.2007 (Annexure-1), seeking stay of the further proceeding of the said trial on the ground that the informant shall be filing application for review of order dated 21.02.2007, passed by this Court in Cr. Rev. no. 208 of 2005. It appears that the trial Court proceeded with the matter and recorded the judgment and order of acquittal on 25.05.2007. This Court is conscious of the fact that the occurrence pertains to the year 1978. Closer of the prosecution evidence by order dated 09.12.2002, has already been upheld by this Court in Cr. Rev. no. 208 of 2005. Keeping in focus all these aspects of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order under challenge. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)