THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.122 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 The respondents herein were tried by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in C.C.No.785 of 2000 for the offences punishable under sections 423, 424, 420 and 120-B of IPC. Having considered the evidence let in by the prosecution the trial court found the first respondent alone guilty of the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC only and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months. However, the trial court acquitted the remaining accused of all the charges. The same is questioned by the de facto complainant who was examined as P.W.1 in this revision. 2 Brief facts are that the first accused agreed to sell the vacant site admeasuring 27 cents to L.W.1-Ramireddy on 09.04.1993 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. Ramireddy paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards advance and agreed to pay the remaining sale consideration at the time of registration. Later the said Ramireddy expressed his willingness to get the sale deed registered by paying the remaining amount, but the accused did not turn up. On that the said Ramireddy got issued a legal notice to the accused and he also got issued a paper publication, but in vain. Subsequently Ramireddy filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement. Later the accused conspired together and sold away the said site to some other person with a dishonest intention to cheat the complainant Ramireddy. Hence he filed a private complaint before the court below and the court below forwarded the same to the police as provided under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. The police registered the said complaint as a case in Cr.No.515 of 1996 and investigated into and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. As stated supra, contending that the said findings and sentencing the first accused alone is inadequate, the de facto complainant preferred this revision. 3 Heard both sides. 4 Having considered the submissions made by Sri N. Parameswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the view that the court below is justified in coming to the conclusion that the first accused alone is guilty of the said offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. 5 Accordingly, I see no merits in this revision and thus the same is dismissed. -------------- Kvsn 08.07.2010