THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1329 of 2005 Date: 20.09.2011 Between: B. Jayalakshmi … Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad, and 3 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1329 of 2005 ORDER: When the matter came up for hearing on 19.09.2011, there was no representation for the revision petitioner. The case was directed to be posted on the next working day (i.e., today) for dismissal. Nevertheless, there is no representation either for the learned counsel for the petitioner or for the petitioner. I, therefore, dispose of the revision on the basis of the material available on record. 2. A.1 to A.3 were charged for the offence u/s.366 IPC for the alleged kidnap of PW.1. PW.1 was claimed by the prosecution to be 16 years old. After due evidence and on the basis of Ex.P.2 certificate issued by PW.5 Head Mistress of the School, the trial Court considered that PW.1 was 19 years old at the time of the alleged commission of the offence. The prosecution, consequently, considered that the question of kidnapping or abducting of PW.1 from the lawful custody of the guardian did not arise. The trial Court, consequently, acquitted all the accused. 3. As already pointed out, no one represents PW.1 who laid this revision before me. The material available before me clearly shows that PW.1 was 19 years old by the time the offence occurred. Consequently, neither the offence u/s.366 IPC nor the offence u/s.366-A IPC was made out against the accused. The trial Court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused. The finding of the trial Court is not erroneous. 4. The Criminal Revision Case is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 20.09.2011 Isn