ORDER 1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 3.1.2002 passed by Shri Bishwadeo Narain Singh, Presiding Officer of Fast Track Additional Court No. III, Patna (AD HOC District & Session Judge) in Sessions Trial Case No. 178 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the learned court below acquitted all the accused persons (opposite party nos. 2 to 6) under section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The prosecution story, as disclosed by informant Dashrath Prasad (not examined), in short, is that on 21.6.1992 at about 9 A.M. while he was returning his home from Dinapore market and when he reached in Mohalla Bibiganj Bhatha road, he noticed Suraj Bhan Mehta (opposite party no. 2), Indra Bhan Mehta (opposite party no. 3), Rajit Kumar (opposite party no. 4, Arjun Chamar (opposite party no. 5) and Arjun Chaudhary (opposite party no.6) standing near the house of Suraj Bhan Mehta and it is alleged that all of them caught hold of him and threw him down on the ground and began to assault him with bricks and stones with the result he sustained head injury. It is also alleged that opposite parties also pressed the neck of the informant and when he raised alarm many people came there and saved him. Cause of occurrence appears to be that two days before the occurrence while one Nepali Bahadur was patrolling during night in Mohalla Gajadhar Chak Jhakhari Mahadeo, the accused persons assaulted him which was objected by the informant. 3. On the basis of written report of the informant Danapur P.S. Case no. 185 of 1992 was registered under sections 147, 341 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons. Later on the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and disposal. 4. The defence was plea of innocence and denial of allegation levelled against the accused persons (opposite party nos. 2 to 6). 5. The charge in this case was framed on 2.7.1997 and as thereafter prosecution failed to examine the single witness the learned trial court acquitted all the accused persons (opposite party nos. 2 to 6) under section 232 Cr.P.C. 6. The submission and contention of learned counsel Mr. 2 to 6). 5. The charge in this case was framed on 2.7.1997 and as thereafter prosecution failed to examine the single witness the learned trial court acquitted all the accused persons (opposite party nos. 2 to 6) under section 232 Cr.P.C. 6. The submission and contention of learned counsel Mr. N.A. Shamshi appearing for the petitioner is that the order of acquittal passed under section 232 Cr.P.C. is bad both on facts and on laws. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that this is not a case of no evidence and so acquittal of opposite party nos,. 2 to 5 (accused persons) is bad in law. It is further submitted that the case was fixed for evidence and the witnesses were ready to depose and so the learned trial court should have taken statements of prosecution witnesses and as this was not done the order of acquittal is bad in law. 7. As against this learned counsel Mr. Arun Kumar no.1 appearing for opposite party nos. 2 to 6 submitted and contended that there is neither irregularity nor illegality in the impugned order of acquittal inasmuch as the order of acquittal was passed under section 232 Cr.P.C. as there was no evidence so as to find opposite party nos. 2 to 6 guilty of offences alleged against them. 8. On a careful consideration of facts on record it is evident that there is no dispute that charge was framed on 2.7.1997 and thereafter no prosecution witness till the date of judgment i.e. 3rd January, 2002, was examined. In such facts and circumstances the learned trial court had no option but to close the case of the prosecution and as there was no evidence on record so as to establish guilt of opposite party learned trial court had no option but to record order of acquittal. 9. Section 232 Cr.P.C. reads as follows: "Acquittal-If after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examinl1g the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, tile Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal'. 10. 9. Section 232 Cr.P.C. reads as follows: "Acquittal-If after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examinl1g the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, tile Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal'. 10. On a bare reading of provision laid down under section 232 Cr.P.C. it will appear that after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record order of acquittal. 11. In this case as there was no evidence on record so as to establish the offence alleged against opposite party nos. 2 to 6 (accused persons) the trial court rightly recorded order of acquittal. 12. In view of facts and law discussed above I find nothing in the impugned order so as to be interfered by this court. 13. In the result, this criminal revision