IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.39 of 2012 Arun Kumar, son of Late Gopeshwar Prasad Sinha, resident of village-Gonawan, P.S.-Harnaut, District-Nalanda, presently Nazir, Civil Court, Nawada, (New-Area), P.S.-Nawada. .Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar.
2. Suresh Kumar, Son of Prabhu Daya Sao, resident of Village- Beli Saray, (Pulpas), P.S. and District-Nawada.
3. Prabhu Dayal Sao, Son of Late Kailash Sao, resident of village-Beli Saray, (Pulpas), P.S. & Distt.-Nawada.
4. Santosh Kumar, Son of Jago Sao, resident of village- Jaddupur, P.S.-Nardiganj, District-Nardiganj, District- Nawada.
5. Savitri Devi, wife of Viveka Nand Prasad, resident of village and P.S.-Govindpur, District-Nawada.
6. Jago Sao, Son of Late Karu Sao, resident of village- Jaddupur, P.S.-Nardiganj, District-Nawada.
7. Sanjeet Prasad Sah @ Sanjit Prasad Sao, son of Surendra Prasad Sao, resident of village-Bajnath Dham (Bilasi Town), P.S. & Distt.-Deoghar, presently at Servant in the Mill at Prabhu Dayal Sao, Mohalla-Beli Sarai (Pulpas), P.S. & Distt.-Nawada.
8. Deo Saran Sao, son of Chandrika Sao, resident of Village- Jamuawan, P.S.-Wazirganj, Distt.-Gaya. .Respondents. ------------”
23. 01.2012 This appeal is against acquittal by the informant in terms of proviso to Section 372 of the Cr. P.C. The informant is a Nazir of the civil court. He lodged the first information report, inter alia, under Section 307 IPC and Explosive Substance Act. Six of the witnesses, citied by him, were from employees of the civil court. The charge sheet having been filed, the accused persons having pleaded not guilty. The trial started. The order sheet of the civil court shows that the summons were issued to the witnesses including those who were employees of that civil court itself where appellant was the Nazir. Summons were served notwithstanding the fact that the appellant was Nazir in the civil court, he could not persuade the witnesses to depose 2 nor did he take any interest in the prosecution. The case was adjourned for more than two years for recording of evidence. Only one witness turned up, who himself has not fully supported the prosecution case. Even this informant did not turn up in the court though he was an employee of the civil court holding the important post of Nazir. The court was left with no option but, upon evidence on record, acquitted the accused persons. Once the accused persons have been acquitted, the informant has got up from deep slumber and filed this appeal. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the trial court has committed no illegality in the matter. In our view, entertaining this appeal would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. There is no case made out for grant for leave to appeal and, consequently, this appeal is dismissed. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) Sanjeet/ (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)