HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1901 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner- P.W.1 against the judgment dated 29.10.2002 passed in C.C.No.33 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the II- Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, acquitting the respondents 1 and 2/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 324 of I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.12.1998 at about 7.00 P.M. on the invitation of Commercial Benefit Corporation Management, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the said C.B.C. office to discuss about the steps to be taken up to solve the payment of deposits and when discussions were going on, heated verbal altercation ensued between the members of depositors Action Committee and the management of Commercial Benefit Corporation. At this juncture, both the accused along with P.Ws.3, 4 and others entered the office room and that A1 closed the doors of the office room and A2 abused P.W.1 in filthy language and squeezed his neck and pushed him down. It is further stated that A1 beat P.W.1 on his head and right wrist with his walking stick and caused simple injury. Subsequently, the police, on the basis of a report given by P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No. 185 of 1998 on the file of I-Town Police Station, Madanapalle and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 341, 352 and 324 of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences against the accused with which they were charged and accordingly acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-P.W.1 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and also perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, rightly held that the prosecution has failed to produce positive, cogent, reliable and corroborative evidence to sustain the theory of commission of offence by the accused, which in my considered view, needs no interference. Further, this is a revision filed against the judgment of acquittal under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. under which the scope and jurisdiction of this Court is very much limited. The said jurisdiction can be invoked by this Court in rarest of rare cases when the Court below has committed a gross error or not followed the relevant provisions of law in proper perspective. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case for interference the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Here in this case, the finding of the Court below is based on sound appreciation of evidence available on record and hence the said finding needs no interference. I find no merit in this revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 24-02-2011 Gsn.