JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This revision petition is filed under Section 397/401, read with Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short). Revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Goalpara in connection with G.R. Case No. 1253/2008, arising out of Goalpara Police Station Case No. 325/2008.

3. The judgment and order is impugned, on the grounds that the trial Court has erred by acquitting Sofior Rahman Talukdar and Mukaddes Ali (hereinafter referred to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively). It is averred that the trial Court has erroneously held that charge under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) was not proved. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective, keeping in view the provisions of Sections 441/442 of the IPC. The trial Court ignored the clinching and corroborating evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly implicating that the respondents had entered into the complainant’s office room within the nursing home campus, armed with lathi and other weapons and snatched away the almirah keys and thereafter looted cash from the drawers. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that Sections 441 and 442 IPC are interrelated. It has been held erroneously that there is no evidence of criminal trespass or wrongful intention to constitute an offence under Section 447 of the IPC.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner Md. Mainul Islam has reiterated the recitals of the revision petition while placing his argument in the Court. It was submitted that the trial Court had an opportunity to watch the demeanour of the prosecution witnesses in Court, and to assess their credibility.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted through his argument that the trial Court has properly adjudicated the case and the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court does not require interference. He has referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Wasif Haider and Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 303.

6. The genesis of this case was that on 17.11.2018, the informant/petitioner lodged an FIR with the police at Goalpara police station stating that on that day at about 11.30 A.M. both the respondents forcefully entered into his room, snatched away the almirah keys and also keys of drawers containing cash. An FIR was lodged and it was registered as Goalpara P.S. Case No. 325/2008, under Sections 448/358 of the Indian Penal Code and the Investigating Officer (I/O in short) embarked upon the investigation.

7. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the respondents No. 2 and 3 under Sections 448/34 IPC.

8. On appearance of the respondents, particulars of offence under Sections 448/34 IPC was read over and explained to them and they abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution side examined 6(six) witnesses including the I/O. On conclusion of trial, the statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, to enable them to explain about the evidence against them and they denied their complicity.

9. Now, the only question that falls for consideration before this Court is the legality and propriety of the findings of the trial Court.

10. In a revision, appreciation of factual issues are not required. The scope of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction of law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding. To decide on the legality and propriety of the findings of the trial Court, it is necessary advert to the judgment and findings of the trial Court. The poignant point is that whether the trial Court has erred by acquitting the accused/respondents.

11. The informant is Md. Mainul Islam and he was working as a Managing