THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.804 of 2002 DATED: 15-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 29-02-2000, passed in C.C.No.1160 of 1996 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem. 2. The brief facts are that due to some longstanding civil disputes between the de facto complainant and the 1st respondent herein-A1 in connection with ownership of certain lands, on 23-12-1994 at about 1200 hours, A1 to A10 went to Venugopal theatre, where P.W.1 and his family members were making a construction within the site laying in barbed wire fencing and after heated altercation of dialogues in between both the parties, the accused beat P.W.1 and other prosecution witnesses and caused injuries to them. On a report made by P.W.1 and others, police registered a case in Cr.No.197 of 1994 against the accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC and pending investigation P.W.1 filed a private complaint before the Court, which was referred to the police for investigation and report under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and again a case in Cr.No.107 of 1005 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 447, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC and as the investigation is one and the same in both the crimes, the investigation in Cr.No.107 of 1995 was referred as ‘action dropped’ and final report was submitted in Cr.No.107 of 1995. During the course of investigation, A2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were arrested on 09- 09-1996 and were remanded to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against A1 to A10. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P17 were marked. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused, but Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate vide his judgment, dated 29-02-2000, acquitted the respondents-accused. The State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said acquittal. 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. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also perusing the 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 15, 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 on 23-12-1994 and the respondents-accused have faced the trial and the judgment was pronounced in the year, 2000, this Court, apart from the merits, finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15th July, 2010. Tsy