JUDGMENT Both the proceedings are filed against judgment and order of R.C.C. No. 40039/1997 which was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jalna. 2. Heard Id. counsel for the appellant, Id. counsel for revision petitioner and Id. A.P.P. for State. Original record is perused by this Court. 3. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the two proceedings can be stated as follows. 4. The incident took place on 15/ 01/1997. There was some dispute over agricultural lands, boundaries between family of the complainant and family of the accused. It was the case of accused that the complainant's side had taken a channel through the field of accused illegally. Civil dispute was also pending at the relevant time in the Court due to aforesaid grievance. At about 10.00 a.m. when complainant Mansaram, his father and other two persons were present near the channel, the accused went there with 10 to 15 unknown persons. They picked up quarrel. During quarrel, assault was made on the complainant and his son by using stick, and fist blows. Other persons took part in the assault and they used sticks against family members of the complainant. Baburao, the father of complainant sustained injuries to his face and he lost four teeth in the incident. On the same day, report came to be given and crime came to be registered in Jalna Police Station for offences punishable u/s 325, 324 read with section 149 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The injured were referred for medical examination. Spot panchanama was drawn. Statements of some witnesses came to be record. Some weapons came to be recovered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for offences punishable u/s 325, 324 read with section 149 and 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. 5. To the charge all the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined only one witness, panch witness and he turned hostile. As eye witnesses and particularly injured witnesses are not examined, the trial Court acquitted the accused. 6. It was mainly submitted for the original complainant that for giving opportunity to the prosecution, the matter needs to be remanded back and the evidence needs to be given in the case. As original record was available, this Court could go through roznama and other record. The incident took place on 15/01/1997. 6. It was mainly submitted for the original complainant that for giving opportunity to the prosecution, the matter needs to be remanded back and the evidence needs to be given in the case. As original record was available, this Court could go through roznama and other record. The incident took place on 15/01/1997. The charge came to be framed on 15/03/1999. Roznamas of subsequent dates show that after framing of the charge for aforesaid offences, the complainant's side attempted to get charge framed for offence punishable u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code also. When it failed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), it approached Sessions Court. For some time, the proceeding was stayed by Sessions Court but ultimately the revision filed by complainant's side came to be dismissed. Record and proceedings was received back in the year 2002 and in August, 2002 witness summonses were issued. Accused No.1 died in the year 2003. The witness summonses were again issued in January, 2003. The defence applied for taking steps for prosecuting the matter and application came to be filed or closing the case of prosecution as the prosecution side was not showing interest in examining witnesses and in making progress in the matter. This application came to be given on 04/03/2003. After that, witness summonses were again issued but the witnesses were not kept present. After five dates of the filing of application for closing case, the case was kept for final arguments as only one witness was examined and eye witnesses were not examined. In view of these circumstances, no further opportunity was given and the matter carne to be decided on 01/07/2003. 7. The aforesaid circumstances are sufficient to show that sufficient opportunity was given by the Court to lead evidence. The incident was of 1997 and the case came to be closed on 01/07/2003. The aforesaid circumstances are sufficient to infer that the prosecution was interested in only harassing the defence and that is why the aforesaid steps were taken. In view of these circumstance, this Court holds that it is not desirable to remand the matter by allowing the revision. As the trial Court has power of making such order and decide the case when no interest is shown to lead the evidence, there is no possibility of interfering in the judgment and order of acquittal. So, both the proceedings stand dismissed. Ordered accordingly.