IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.456 OF 2010 Between: Pulla Gabriel … PETITIONER And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.456 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. On 31.03.2010 and 04.06.2010 none appeared for the petitioner in this matter. On 02.07.2010 the petitioner’s counsel was absent both during before lunch session and after lunch session. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption of “For dismissal”. In spite of it, the petitioner’s counsel is absent today also. There is no representation for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. 2. The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant seeks to file this revision petition against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, in C.C.No.190 of 2006, dated 25.03.2009. Charges were framed against the accused by the lower Court under Sections 468, 419 and 420 I.P.C. It is alleged that the accused/second respondent stealthily obtained title deeds for the property in question from house of the petitioner and agreed to sell the property in favour of PW.2 for Rs.70,000/- and obtained cash of Rs.40,000/- from him and executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of PW.2 by impersonating himself as the de facto complinant/PW.1. The lower Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution did not prove impersonation and forgery by sending the disputed mortgage deed covered by Ex.P-3 to an expert for comparison of signatures of PW.1 and writings of the accused to prove the alleged forgery by the accused. Reasoning of the lower Court for coming to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty, is sound and cannot be assailed in any manner. Having regard to section 401(3) Cr.P.C. finding of acquittal cannot be altered to one of conviction in a revision petition filed under section 397 Cr.P.C. Thus, even on merits, there are no grounds to interfere with order of acquittal passed by the lower Court. 3. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 05, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.456 OF 2010 July 05, 2010