THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1119 of 2001 DATED: 18-03-2010 ORDER: On the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioners, who are the complainants and examined as P.Ws.1 & 2, the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor took cognizance of the offences against the respondents herein punishable under Sections 323, 324 & 447 r/w 34 IPC. After evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the respondents are guilty of the said offences, however taking a lenient view imposed only a fine of Rs.250/-each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 447 IPC and similarly imposed a fine of Rs.250/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 323 r/w 34 IPC. The said judgment was pronounced on 20-09-1999 in C.C.No.102 of 1997. Questioning the said judgment, the respondents filed Crl.A.No.225 of 1999 and the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Chittoor, vide judgment, dated 31-08-2001, while setting aside the said judgment of the trial Court acquitted the accused- respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 323 r/w 34 IPC. Assailing the said judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, petitioners filed this Criminal Revision Case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants are the absolute owners of the schedule mentioned property and the accused have no manner of right or possession over the same. There are mis-understandings between the complainants and the accused, and in pursuance thereof the accused attempted to trespass into the schedule mentioned property and therefore the complainants filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.92 of 1997 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Chittoor against the accused and obtained an ad-interim injunction in their favour in I.A.No.61 of 1997. On 27-03-1997 at about 7.00 a.m., while the 2nd complainant was taking the cow dung to the store, A1 came to the spot and claimed that the schedule mentioned property belongs to him, and pushed the 2nd complainant on the ground and beat her with mud stone on the back side of left shoulder. When the 1st complainant tried to intervene and went in rescue of the 2nd complainant, A2 and A3 came upon the 1st complainant and beat him with hands and legs indiscriminately. A2 beat the 1st complainant with mud stone on the right side of temple region and caused bleeding injury. All the accused threatened the complainants with dire consequences. One Chengal Reddy, who witnessed the occurrence, separated the complainants from the hands of the accused and both the complainants went to G.D.Nellore police station and lodged a report about the occurrence, but police did not take any action on the report given by the complainants and they did not even send the complainants to the hospital for the purpose of treatment. Hence they filed the complaint. 3. Heard learned counsel on either side. Perused the record. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also the evidence let in, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the lower appellate Court is correct. Further, the alleged offence, even according to the complainants i.e the petitioners herein, had taken place on 27-03-1997 i.e. about 13 years back. Hence, this Court, at this length of time is not inclined to entertain this revision, and further, there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment under revision and hence this Court is agreeing with the findings of the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.225 of 1999. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 18th March, 2010. Tsy