JUDGMENT

Lilamoy Ghosh, J. -The petitioner tenant made a complaint that the landlady O.P. 1 and the Opts. 2 to 5 caused disturbance in the supply of water. A case was started, being G.R. Case No. 3525 of 1973 under section 430 of the I.P.C.

2. By his order - dated 8.9.81, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alipore acquitted the accused O.Ps.

3. This revisional application is directed against that order of acquittal.

4. Mr. Ramapati Roy, the learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner. None appeared for the O.Ps. to 5.

5. Mr. S.K. Das Gupta appeared for the State.

6. The only contention of Mr. Roy, appearing for the petitioner has been that there is sufficient evidence that on the date the commissioner came for inspection, O.Ps. 1 to 5 caused disturbance in the supply of water. The learned advocate for the State has supported the order of the learned Magistrate.

7. It is evident that this revisional application does Dot lie. On the evidence recorded, the learned Magistrate came to the finding that the allegation against the accused was Dot substantiated. Two witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were examined for the prosecution. The two witnesses contradicted each other. P. W. 2 categoric