HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.276 OF 2001 Date:08.07.2010 Between: J. Florance Emy … Petitioner and Mullapudi @ Nidadavole Gopalam and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.276 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, in C.C.No.89 of 1996. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the defacto complainant filed a private complaint before the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, against the 1st respondent herein, alleging the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and the same was referred to the Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem P.S. for investigation and report. Having received the complaint, the police registered Crime No.152 of 1994 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.89 of 1996. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.18 were marked. On behalf of defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D.1 to D.5 were marked. On a careful consideration of both the oral and documentary evidence, the court below came to the conclusion that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the accused- 1st respondent herein and thereby he is not liable to be punished, and accordingly, acquitted him of the said offence by judgment dated 29.11.2000. As against the said judgment, the State i.e., the Inspector of Police, Tadepaligudem Police Station, did not file any appeal and hence the defacto complainant filed this revision invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It is true that against an acquittal, the State has to prefer an appeal and when the State does not file any appeal, it is always left open for the aggrieved person i.e., the defacto complainant/victim to approach this Court and file a revision as provided for under Sections 397, 399 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the scope of this Court in a revision of this nature is very limited. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the said sentence is erroneous, the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law and this Court has no power to set aside the said judgment and to impose punishment as if the accused has committed the said offence. As the alleged offence had taken place in the year 1994, this Court is of the view that it may not be desirable to entertain this revision at this length of time i.e., after 16 years. 5. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that this Criminal Revision Case deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 8th July, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.276 OF 2001 (Dismissed) 8th July, 2010 cbs