IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.87 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2008 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Kirani Pd. Mahadev Sao Resident of Village- Sobh, P.S.- Barachatti, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar and Ors bihar 2. Vijay Prasad Dilchand Prasad Resident of Village- Sour, P.S.- Barachati, District - Gaya 3. Chhotu Prasad Dilchand Mahto Resident of Village- Sour, P.S.- Barachati, District - Gaya 4. Mithilesh Prasad Nanhku Mahtoa Resident of Village- Sour, P.S.- Barachati, District - Gaya 5. Baldeo Prasad Sukhlal Mahto Resident of Village- Sour, P.S.- Barachati, District - Gaya 6. Rajo Prasad Late Bishun Mahto Resident of Village- Sour, P.S.- Barachati, District - Gaya ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bishwa Nath Mahto, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Chandra Mohan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 7 28-01-2025 The present revision petition has been preferred by the Petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 16.11.2018 passed by learned F.T.C.-II, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 173 of 2017/264/2010 whereby learned F.T.C.-II has convicted the Opposite Party No.2 to 6 under Section 323 read with Section Patna High Court CR. REV. No.87 of 2019(7) dt.28-01-2025 2/2 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but they have been acquitted of charge under Section 379, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. 2. This Revision Petition has been filed against the acquittal of the petitioner under Section 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Here, it would be relevant to refer to Section 401(4) Cr.PC which provides that where appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no revision petition may be entertained by the Court at the instance of the party who could have filed the appeal. I further find that as per the proviso to Section 372 the petitioner has right to file appeal against acquittal or conviction for lesser offence. Hence, this Revision Petition is not maintainable in view of the aforesaid statutory provisions. 4. If the petitioner prefers an appeal, the time spent during this proceeding may be taken into consideration to condone the delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Chandan/- (Jitendra Kumar, J.) U T