IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1141 of 2010 DATE:19.07.2010 Between: Kancharla Veerabhadrudu …… Petitioner/L.W-1 And: The State of A.P. rep. By P.P and others. …..Respondents/Accused HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1141 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is sought to be filed by one of the victims against finding of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Banaganapalli by judgment dated 24.11.2009 in C.C. No.210 of 2008. Under Section 401(3) Cr.P.C, this Court cannot alter a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising powers of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 2) The case between the parties is a trivial one relating to offences punishable under Sections 143, 448, 323/149 I.P.C. It is alleged that when A- 1 asked for repayment of hand loan of Rs.2,000/- obtained by the petitioner, the petitioner promised to pay the same after obtaining compensation amount from the cement factory who occupied his land. It is further alleged that on 11.08.2008 at about 6.30 A.M A-1 to A-6 trespassed into house of the petitioner and beat him with hands and legs and that they also beat his wife and son with hands and legs when they intervened. Even though the case was pending in the lower Court, the police could not serve witness summonses and produce the petitioner, his wife and son for their examination during trial; but filed special report of the Village Revenue Officer, Kotapadu village to the effect that the petitioner and his family members went to undisclosed destination after leaving the village after the cement factory acquired their lands. Therefore, the lower Court after examining P.Ws 1 and 2 who are doctor and investigating officer, recorded acquittal. Now, the petitioner filed this revision petition contending that they were in fact residents of the same village. On the last occasion Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner sought to file a certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the effect that the petitioner and his family members are residents of the same village. Today another certificate is filed styling it as medical certificate without any date said to have been issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Kadapa to the effect that the petitioner was suffering from typhoid fever and chicken guniya and general weakness and he was advised bed rest from 01.07.2009 to 30.08.2009. It is not known whether the petitioner took treatment from the said doctor or not. This certificate has absolutely no value in the eye of law. Since the petitioner, his son and wife could not be produced by the police in the lower Court for their examination, the lower Court rightly closed prosecution evidence by examining only P.Ws 1 and 2. When the police themselves expressed their inability to produce their own prosecution witnesses, the only course open to the Magistrate is to close the prosecution evidence and pronounce judgment of acquittal. I see no infirmity in the judgment passed by the lower Court. 3) In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 19, 2010 KSH