IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.434 of 2008
UMESH PRASAD SINGH S/O- SRI DASRATH PRASAD SINGH, R/O-
VILLAGE BABHANBIGHA, P.S.- BARBIGHA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. MINTU SINGH, SON OF RAJNITI SINGH
3. RAJNITI SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM LAL SINGH
4. ASHWINI KUMAR SINGH
5. CHUNCHUN SINGH,
6. LADDU SINGH
NOS 4 TO 6 SONS OF SADANAND SINGH
7. SADANAND SINGH SON OF LATE SANTOSHI SINGH
8. MIRTUNJAY SINGH, SON OF RAM NARESH SINGH
9. NIRANJAN SINGH, SON OF LATE HARO SINGH.
10. NEEL KAMAL SINGH, SON OF RAMESHWAR SINGH
11. CHANDAN SINGH, SON OF UPENDRA SINGH,
ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- BABHAN BIGHA, P.S.- BARBIGHA,
DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA.
12. CHUNCHUN SINGH, SON OF BAL KISHORE SINGH, R/O-
VILLAGE NIRPUR, P.S.- BIND, DISTRICT- NALANDA AT PRESENT
BABHAN BIGHA ROAD, P.S.- BARBIGHA, DISTRICT-
SHEIKHPURA.
13. RAMA KANT SINGH, SON OF RAM RATAN SHARMA, R/O-
MOHALLA KHANDAKPAR, P.S.- BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT-
NALANDA.
For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Matloob Rab, APP
For the O.P. no. 2 : Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate.
-----------
4 28.10.2010 Both sides present.
Informant has filed the present case questioning the
sustainability and/or legality of the order impugned whereby some
of the co-accuseds facing trial (O.P. nos. 3 to 13) have been
acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under Sections 302, 149,
452 and 389 of the Indian Penal Code.
Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, handed in a copy of
the order dated 2.7.2008 passed in Govt. Appeal (DB) no. 25 of
2
2008 (The State of Bihar versus Ashwani Kumar Singh & Ors)
and submitted that the Government appeal preferred against the
present judgment has already been considered and dismissed by
a Division Bench of this Court, the copy is taken on record and
marked “X”.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, submits that in view of amended provision
of the Code, the petitioner shall have right to file appeal.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
parties, on the other hand, controverts the aforesaid stand of the
petitioner in view of the date from which the aforesaid
amendment had taken effect.
Be that as it may, since the Government appeal arising
out of the present judgment and order has already been
dismissed, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the present
judgment and order.
The application has no merit. It is accordingly
dismissed.
( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )
pkj