IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD Dated:23-09-2010 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.545 OF 2003 BETWEEN: Jampala Sivarama Prasad S/o. Venkateswara Rao and another …. Petitioners AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.545 OF 2003 ORDER: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 28-01-2003 in C.C. No.45 of 2001 whereby the respondents herein, who were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 506 and 292 IPC were acquitted. As the State did not chose to file any appeal, the de facto complainants, who were examined as PWs.1 and 2 filed the present revision. 2. From a reading of the trial Court’s judgment, the proceedings against the 3rd respondent S. Sridevi appears to have been quashed by this Court in Criminal M.P. No.1544 of 2001 as such, this revision is not maintainable in sofaras the 3rd respondent. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent, 2nd petitioner and others have started a finance company, by name Krishna Ganga Finance Company in Araundalpet, Guntur in the year 1995 and 1st respondent was the Managing Partner of the said Company. Upto 1998, the said company functioned properly. Thereafter, differences arose between the partners, as 2nd respondent did not pay the amounts to the other partners. Then, the other partners filed case in Crime No.147 of 2000 against 1st respondent stating that he cheated them. There are some other cases pending in the Court between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent bore grudge against the petitioners and telephoned to the house of petitioners and threatened them with dire consequences and abused them in filthy language. While so, on 04-09-2000 a news item was published with regard to Hi-tech prostitution in Arundalpet, Guntur in Vaartha Daily Newspaper of Guntur District Edition. On seeing the same, the 2nd respondent hatched a plan and pasted a photo of the 2nd petitioner at the heading of Hi-tech Prostitution in Guntur and got a photocopy of the same and distributed those copies. He also posted the photocopy of the said paper and the pamphlets to her parents’ place addressing to Y. Tulasamma, who was one of partners in the said finance company, and also to some other persons. After seeing them, said Tulasamma informed the same to the 1st petitioner and sent the pamphlet and the photocopy of the paper to him. After receiving them, the petitioners secured the original Vaartha Newspaper in which the publication was made and came to know about the fraud played by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, they gave a report in the Police Station concerned, against the 2nd respondent and on receipt of the said report, the police filed Crime No.26 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 500, 506, 509 and 292 IPC against the 2nd respondent and recorded the statements of the petitioners. Police took up investigation, arrested the 2nd respondent on 06-11-2000 and filed charge sheet. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that PWs.1 and 2 have clearly stated as to what had happened and, in fact, there was no cross-examination by the respondents. In those circumstances, the trial Court ought to have accepted the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and found the 2nd respondent guilty of the offences for which he was tried. It is his submission that PWs.5 and 6, who were totally independent witnesses and nothing to do with the petitioners, have clearly stated about the delivery of letter and distribution of Exs.P-1 and P-2 and accepting the evidence of the said witnesses, the trial Court ought to have found the 2nd respondent guilty of the offences for which he was tried. 5. However, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to hold that the 2nd respondent is the author of the said letters, which are marked as Exs.P-1 and P-2 and in the absence of any proof, solely basing on the oral testimony of PWs.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, no Court can hold that the respondent is guilty of the offences and the trial Court, in those circumstances, only found the respondent not guilty of the offences for which he was tried and it is not a case of warranting interference by this Court. 6. In the light of the said submissions, this Court looked into the entire material on record. It is a fact that PWs.1 and 2 were not cross- examined. May be, it is true that the Court can act upon the chief- examination of PWs.1 and 2, provided it is trustworthy. PW.1 is none other than the husband of PW.2 and the defamatory allegations are against PW.2 i.e. the 2nd petitioner herein. PW.1, during the course of chief-examination, has not stated anything with regard to the alleged defamatory statement made by the 2nd respondent against his wife. Normal conduct of the wife is to inform about the same to her husband. As stated supra, PW.2 is the wife of PW-1 and PW.1 does not speak anything about the said defamatory allegations. Of course, PW.2 had spoken about the said defamatory allegations. It is curious to note as to why she has not chosen to inform the same to her husband PW.1. This throws any amount of doubt in the mind of the Court. PW-5, no doubt, has spoken about the delivery of Ex.P-9 cover and similarly PWs.6 and 7 have also spoken with regard to their witnessing the distribution of Exs.P-1 and P-2. 7. It shall be noted here that the report was given to the police on 30-10-2000 and immediately a case in Crime No.262 of 2000 was registered and the Investigating Officer has commenced his investigation. After investigation, the charge sheet also was filed. But, however, along with the charge sheet, Exs.P-1 and P-2 were not filed. Of course, it came in the evidence of PW-10 that at the time when he received Ex.P-3 report, he also received Exs.P-1 and P-2. If really, Exs.P-1 and P-2 were handed over to PW-9, the same would have been filed at the time when the charge sheet was filed. The Sub- Inspector, who was directed to hold further investigation, appears to have seized those two letters on 25-07-2002. The said fact is clear from the Exs.P-1 and P-2 as the Sub-Inspector, who was directed to hold further investigation, initialed and put the date as 25-07-2002 on receipt of Exs.P-1 and P-2. From the above, it appears that the said two letters were not handed over at the time when Ex.P-3 was given. The Sub-Inspector, who received Exs.P-1 and P-2, was not examined. All these aspects were gone into by the trial Court in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed in bringing home the guilty of the 2nd respondent and accordingly acquitted him. 8. Further, it shall be remembered that this revision is under Sections 379 and 401 Cr.P.C., wherein the powers of this Court are restricted. Even if this Court, ultimately, finds that an error apparent has been committed by the trial Court, the maximum that can be done by this Court is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. As the alleged offence, according to the case of the prosecution is of the year 2000, at this length of time, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding. I see no merits in this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J September 23, 2010. KTL