THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.901 of 2002 DATED: 15-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 23-10-2001, passed in C.C.No.266 of 1993 by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2 On the basis of a report given by the petitioner herein-P.W.1, a case was registered against the 1st respondent herein-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420 and 471 IPC and after investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as C.C.No.266 of 1993. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.20 were marked, besides Ex.X1. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Ex.B.1 was marked. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate vide judgment, dated 23-10-2001, acquitted the 1st respondent herein-accused. The State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said acquittal. 5. As there was no appeal preferred by the State, the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., filed the present Criminal Revision Case assailing the said judgment. 6. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. In fact, the learned Magistrate having analyzed the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8, while giving cogent reasons, recorded the said acquittal. Further, the scope of the revision against the acquittal is very much limited. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case and the Court below is not justified in recording the acquittal, the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. As the alleged offence took place in 1993 and the 1st respondent herein-accused has faced the trial and the judgment was pronounced in the year, 2001, this Court, apart from the merits, finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15th July, 2010. Tsy