IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 7 3 1 of 2005 Between: Shaik Waheed … Petitioner V/s. Syed Irfan & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Mohd.Shafiuddin Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : Sri M.A. Bari Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 7 3 1 OF 2005 O R D E R : No representation on the earlier occasion. Today the matter is posted under the caption “for dismissal”. Today also no representation on behalf of the revision petitioner. 2. This Criminal Revision arising out of the order of acquittal recorded by the II-Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in CC.No. 185 of 2003 dated 16-2-2005, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents 1 and 2 accused for the offences punishable under section 324, 427 read with section 34 IPC and acquitted them under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Against which the revision petitioner filed this revision, challenging the said judgment. 3. The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned II-Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in CC.No. 185 of 2003, dated 16-2-2005. 4. A perusal of the entire judgment and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears that the learned trial Judge negatived the evidence adduced by the prosecution and gave benefit of doubt to the respondents 1 and 2 herein and acquitted them for the offences with which they were charged. It is well settled proposition of law that when two views are possible on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution; if one view is in favour of the accused, when the same is appreciated by the learned trial Judge, there is no need to refuse the order passed by the learned trial Judge. Admittedly in this case, there is some discrepancies and also lack of clinching evidence. Hence, the learned Magistrate after recording cogent reasoning for his conclusion, acquitted the respondents 1 and 2 (accused). Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate. The Criminal Revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 08-12-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 7 3 1 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 61 Date: 08-12-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L