2026:JHHC:14901 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1051 of 2017 --------- Binod Kumar Modi, Son of Late Debi Prasad Modi, Resident of Mohalla- Mai Road, P.O.-Dumka, P.S.-Dumka (T), Dist.-Dumka, presently residing at 161/1 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Room No.19, P.O. Burra bazar, P.S.- Jorasako,Kolkata-700007 … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sedmal Modi, Son of Late Debi Prasad Modi 3. Om Prakash Modi, Son of Late Debi Prasad Modi 4. Anil Modi, Son of Sedmal Modi 5. Sanjay Modi, Son of Sedmal Modi 6. Sunil Modi, Son of Late Sedmal Modi 7. Amit Modi, Son of sedmal Modi 8. Kailash Modi, Son of Sedmal Modi 9. Shambhu Modi, Son of Sedmal Modi 10. Parwati Deiv, Wife of Sedmal Modi 11. Santoshi Devi Modi @ Santosh Devi Modi, wife of Om Prakash Modi All are resident of Main Road, Dumka, P.O.-Dumka, P.S.-Dumka (T), District-Dumka …. Opp. Parties ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.P.P. --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORDERS ----------- Dated: 14th May, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Indu Shekhar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. 2. The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 18.03.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Cr. Appeal No.04 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the above named accused persons/opposite parties were acquitted in the instant case whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka has convicted and sentenced to the appellant No.1/Opposite party No.1 to undergo S.I. for 2 ½ years 2026:JHHC:14901 Cr. Rev. No.1051 of 2017 2 for the offence under section 380 of IPC and S.I. for 1 year for the offence under section 448 of IPC. Learned court of CJM has also convicted the opposite party Nos.2 to 11 for the offence under section 448 of IPC but release them on due admonition vide order dated 21.12.2011 passed in G.R. No.1004 of 1997 (T.R. No.276 of 2011). 3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that there was a three storey building jointly belonging to the informant/petitioner and his two other brothers in which the informant/petitioner took possession over one room on the first floor. The informant/petitioner being an advocate by profession left the house and went to Kolkata for livelihood with his family members keeping all household articles, ornaments like silver, gold, bed cot, chairs and apparels by locking the door. On 14.11.1997, when the informant along with his wife returned to his house at about 10:00 am, he found the lock of the room was broken and his two brothers along with their wives and children were in the said room and his articles kept in the room have been removed. When the informant asked them the reason of doing so, the accused persons/opposite parties became furious and violent and raise iron rods to assault the informant and threatened to leave the place. Thereafter, the informant/petitioner left for Deoghar and lodged the FIR. 4. On the basis of above information, Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.175 of 1997 was registered for the offence under sections 454-B, 380 and 120B 2026:JHHC:14901 Cr. Rev. No.1051 of 2017 3 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the opposite party Nos.2-11. On the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, learned CJM was pleased to take cognizance of offences against the accused persons/opposite parte No.2- 11 and charges were framed, read over and explained to the accused persons/opposite party Nos.2-11, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the informant of this case and Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.175 of 1997was lodged at the instant of him in which charge-sheet was submitted against the opposite parties for the offence under sections 454, 380/120B of IPC. After conclusion of the trial, learned court of Magistrate held the opposite parties guilty for the aforesaid offense but an appeal, which has been preferred by the accused persons, learned appellate court without recording any special reasons for taking a different view from the concerned trial court has illegally passed the order of acquittal of the opposite parties. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court is not sustainable under law and fit to be set aside, allowing this revision. 6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner herein and has defended the impugned judgment on merits. 2026:JHHC:14901 Cr. Rev. No.1051 of 2017 4 7. It appears that the learned trial court has held the opposite parties guilty for the said offence but the appellate court has passed a reasoned order differing from the findings recorded by the learned trial court. Therefore, in this case, two views are possible, and it is settled law that the view in favour of accused persons must be taken. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hydru Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2004) 13 SCC 374 has held at para 3 as under 3………….”It is well settled that in revision against acquittal by a private party, the powers of the Revisional Court are very limited. It can interfere only if there is any procedural irregularity or material evidence has been overlooked or misread by the subordinate court. If upon reappraisal of evidence, two views are possible, it is not permissible even for the appellate court in appeal against acquittal to interfere with the same, much less in revision where the powers are much narrower. No procedural irregularity has been found by the High Court in the order of the Sessions Court whereby the appellant was acquitted………” 9. In view of the above discussion and reasons, learned counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any procedural error in the judgment of learned appellate court. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate court. This criminal revision appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. 2026:JHHC:14901 Cr. Rev. No.1051 of 2017 5 10. Interim order, if any passed in this case, stands vacated. 11. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/- 14/05/2026 Uploaded On 19/05/2026