THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.823 of 2002 DATED: 15-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 30-10-2000, passed in C.C.No.67 of 1999 by the learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor. 2. The brief facts are that A1-2nd respondent herein created a bogus document as if the Settlement Officer, Nellore granted him ryotwari patta for a total extent of Ac.10.00 of land in Sy.Nos.413/1; 413/2 and 414/1 of Arimakulapalle, vide Settlement Officer’s S.R.56/11A/74, dated 22-05-1996, with forged signatures and filed O.S.No.1001 of 1986 on the file of the learned Principal District Musnif, Chittoor and he also gave a false statement before the Court as if the said land belongs to him. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Yadamari confirmed that the land is D.K.T. land and therefore A1 has no right over the said land. The 2nd respondent herein-A1 also produced a false document before the Court and A2 and A3 also deposed false evidence before the Court in support of the claim of A1. Hence, charge sheet was filed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 209, 425, 464, 465, 466, 471 and 192 IPC and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.67 of 1999. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P6 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate vide judgment, dated 30-10-2000, acquitted the respondents 2 to 4 herein-A1 to A3. The State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said acquittal. 5. As there was no appeal preferred by the State, the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., filed the present Criminal Revision Case assailing the said judgment. 6. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. In fact, the learned Magistrate having analyzed the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, while giving cogent reasons, recorded the said acquittal. Further, the scope of the revision against the acquittal is very much limited. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case and the Court below is not justified in recording the acquittal, the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. As the alleged offence took place in 1996 and the respondents 2 to 4 herein-A1 to A3 have faced the trial and the judgment was pronounced in the year, 2000, this Court, apart from the merits, finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15th July, 2010. Tsy