IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 545 of 2005 Between: Ganapavarapu Brahama Naga Ganga Prasad … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 545 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the order of acquittal recorded by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, in CC.No. 133 of 2000 dated 6-1-2005. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 were charged for the offences punishable under section 417, 420 and 506 of IPC. 3. The counsel representing the petitioner-defacto complainant called absent. The counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 is present. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Magistrate found the respondents 1 to 3 not guilty for the offences punishable under section 417, 420 and 506 IPC and they were acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed by the defacto complainant. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 as well as the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor representing the State and perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 5. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents 1 to 3 on the following reasons mentioned in para nos. 24 and 28 of his judgment. It is relevant to extract para nos. 24 and 28 of the judgment in CC.No.133 of 2000 as follows: “In view of the above said contention this court verified the material on record, i.e. Ex.P3 and the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and found that it is the case of the prosecution that at the instigation of A2 and A3, PW-1 paid amount of Rs.33,000/- to A-1 and PW-2 they received the same on 01-5-1999 and made an acknowledgement on the reverse side of Ex.P1 i.e., Ex.P1 by PW-2 only, but A-1 did not acknowledge the same. Thus, very act of A-1 is nothing but cheating. In view of the above said contention, this court verified the material on record and the evidence and found that PW-1 deposed that on believing words of A-2 and A-3 he kept silent even though A-1 died not acknowledges the amount on 01-5-1999. This court found that RW-1 kept silent upto receiving summons from civil court in OS.187 of 2000. After receipt of summons only he preferred to give report against A-1. In view of the abovesaid circumstances some doubt is arising in the mind of the court why PW-1 kept quiet for all these period. On perusal of Ex.P1 and as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.P1 and as per the representation of A-1 and A-3 on payment of Rs.33,000/- the said house site has to be registered in the name of PW-1. Moreover, it is the fact that PW-1 know that A-1 executed Ex.P4 in favour of PW-5 by susspendingEx.P1 even having know the fact PW-1 giving further amount i.e., Rs.33,000/- without taking efforts to get registration of the above said house and site without taking proper acknowledgement on 01-5-1999 and his subsequent silence till the receipt of suit summons is creating a doubt in the mind of the court whether he paid the above said amount or not. On further scrutiny of Ex.P3 it does not disclose that A-1 is also present at the time of execution of Ex.P3 Even though PW3 to PW5 deposed that A-1 received Rs.33000/- their evidence cannot be believable in the absence of documentary proof as the nature of transaction as such it must be proved through documentary evidence. In view of the above said circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the accused can be considered”. “In view of this contention, this court verified the material on record and the evidence of PW-1 and part played by A2 and A3 and found that they are only mediators, they tried to convince both parties to solve disputes in between PW-1 and A-1 and further found that they have no interest in disputed property and they are no way related to A-1. In the absence of specific proof by prosecution, their interest in the said disputed property and their relation with A-1 on the mere allegations, this court cannot come to conclusion that they are also committed the offence along with A-1 coming to the allegations under section 506 IPC except the evidence of PW-1 there is no corroborative piece of evidence to show that A-1 along with A2 and A3 went to the house of PW-1 and threatened him for dire consequences. In view of the above said circumstances, in the absence of conclusive evidence against A2 and A3, the allegations against A-2 and A-3 not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, they are entitled for benefit of doubt”. 6. It is well settled law that in a revision against acquittal, when two views are possible and one view which is favourable to the accused, the same shall be given effect. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate, as the learned Magistrate gave cogent reasoning for his conclusion on all aspects. Hence, the present Criminal Revision fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 01-10-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 545 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 5 2 Date: 01-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L