JUDGMENT : J.M. Mahapatra, J. - The revision has been filed by the informant in G. R. Case No. 366/1986 and is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-1-1967 of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawapara, district Kalahandi acquitting opp. party No. 2, Bhagaban Meher. 2. Prosecution case briefly stated is that on 12-10-1986 at. about 9. 30 A.M. while the petitioner who was a Junior Engineer at the material time was at the work site busy with supervision of the work, opp. party No. 2 (accused in the G.R. case), came to him and asked for some arrear dues which the informant refused to pay. This appears to have led to some altercation between the parties, in course of which opp. party No. 2 is alleged to have dealt Chapal blows to the informant. On the information lodged by the petitioner, a case Under Sections 353 and 355, I.P.C. was registered against opp: party No. 2 Bhagaban Meher and he was sent up for trial 3. The defence of the accused-opp party No. 2 is one of denial. 4. In support of its case, prosecution has examined four witnesses all of whom are supposed to be the eye witnesses, but none of them has supported the prosecution case. Although they claimed to have known both the parties they did not breathe a word of having seen the alleged incident of assault. In the premises of these facts, the learned Court below held that prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused opp. party No. 2 and has recorded the order of acquittal. 5. Mr. Pradhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that in the absence of the evidence of the informant, the learned Court below should not have recorded the order of acquittal. I was taken through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. I also perused the order sheet of the trial Court. It is true that the informant (petitioner) has not been examined in this case. But the reason for his non-examination is not spelt out from the order sheet of the record. It appears that on 12-1-1987 all the four witnesses who appeared for the prosecution were examined and the case for the prosecution was closed and the statement of the opp. party No. 2 was also recorded. But the reason for his non-examination is not spelt out from the order sheet of the record. It appears that on 12-1-1987 all the four witnesses who appeared for the prosecution were examined and the case for the prosecution was closed and the statement of the opp. party No. 2 was also recorded. There is nothing to show that any prayer was made on the side of the prosecution to grant some time for examination of the informant who was the person aggrieved in this case. This would go to suggest as though prosecution was not interested to examine the informant. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that it does not lie in the mouth of the prosecution now to contend that in the absence of the examination of the informant, the acquittal was bad in law. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, I entirely agree with the finding of the learned Court below and hold that the order of acquittal is wholly justified. 7. In the result, therefore, the revision is dismissed being devoid of merits. Final Result : Dismissed