THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Crl.R.C.No.1290 OF 2010 BETWEEN: S. Konda Reddy, S/o. Pedda Linga Reddy R/o. 1/2172, Housing Board Colony, Kadapa. PETITIONER And 1. Nagireddy Venugopal Reddy, S/o. Obul Reddy, R/o. Dr.No.4/615-2, Aravindanagar, Near RTC Bus stand, Kadapa, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioner: Sri P. Ravi Shankar Counsel for Respondents 1, 2 & 4: Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri. Counsel for Respondent No.5: Additional Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following order: ORDER: This revision case is sought to be filed by the de facto complainant questioning order of acquittal passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Kadapa, in C.C.No.31 of 2006. Respondents 1 to 4 are A.1 to A.4. It is stated that A.3 died subsequently and the case against him stood abated. The accused are charged for offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465, 471 IPC. It is alleged that A.2 to A.4 are supporters and henchmen of A.1 and that A.1 claiming to be legatee under a forged Will said to have been executed by one Subbamma in his favour, sold away land belonging to the de facto complainant. During trial in the lower Court, some exercise was done by way of evaluating execution of the disputed Will by late Subbamma through some expert and the prosecution could prove that the Will under which A.1 claimed rights was a forged Will. There is no further proof that it was A.1, who forged signatures or thumb impressions of late Subbamma in the Will. In the absence of proof of forgery by any of the accused, the lower Court rightly held that none of the accused can be found guilty of forging the said Will. Ultimately the dispute between the parties is one which is purely of civil nature. Right of Subbamma in the land, which is being claimed by the de facto complainant, is in dispute. Title to the land which was sold by A.1 as legatee of late Subbamma under a Will, cannot be decided by a Criminal Court. Therefore, the lower Court rightly acquitted A.1 to A.4 in this Case. Further, in a revision case filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C., this Court as per Section 401 (3) Cr.P.C. is not empowered to alter a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) 21st July, 2010 Js.