THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.No.99 OF 2009 ORDER The revision is filed by the complainant/petitioner against the acquittal of the accused. A charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali vide C.C.No.61 of 2004 and the accused Nos.1 and 3 were convicted for an offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. As against that, Crl.A.No.178 of 2006 was preferred to the XI Additional District Judge, Guntur and the said appeal was filed allowed finding Accused Nos.1 and 3 also not guilty of the offence. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision case is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is legal and sustainable? POINT:- The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.4 is the wife of Accused No.3 and Accused Nos.1 and 2 are friends of Accused No.3. A- 3 claimed to be influential collected money by cheating the innocent public that he will provide jobs to the youth and also provide properties for cheaper rates. On that PW.1 paid a sum of Rs.71,000/-; PW.4 paid a sum of Rs.52,000/- and from others also money was collected. Thereafter, A-3 gave a blank cheque for Rs.25,000/- and it was dishonoured. Hence the complaint. The appellate court while assessing the evidence came to a conclusion that in order to constitute an offence under cheating the intention should be at the time when the inducement was made or property was made to be delivered. According to the lower appellate court, A-3 has taken PW.1 to several persons and therefore there are bona fides on the conduct of A-3. In fact, as can be seen from the evidence on record, a blank cheque is also said to have been given for PW.1. The amount said to have been paid by PW.4 is also not believed. Evidently, except the oral testimony, there is nothing to suggest that the Accused No.3 had any false motive. In fact, with regard to the part of the evidence, the lower court itself has found that it is not believable as against A-2 and A-4. That being so, the same evidence has to be viewed with great scrutiny and the lower appellate court has found that it is not inclined to accept the theory of cheating. There are absolutely no grounds to find any fault in the appreciation of the evidence of the lower court and consequently there are no merits in the revision case. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 20-12-2011 TSNR