THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 55 OF 2001 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is directed against the Judgment, dated 28.09.2000 in C.C. No. 230 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC., and Accused Nos. 3 to 16, 18 to 20, 22, 23, 25 were found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 494 read with 114 IPC., and were accordingly acquitted of the same. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the present Revision Case, may be stated as follows: The marriage of Accused No.1 with Ch. M. Bhagya was performed on 13.08.1975 at Karimnagar and they were blessed with a son by name Vamshi Krishna on 08.12.1980. While the marriage between them is subsisting, Accused No.1 married Accused No.2 on 03.12.1984, at 06.00 a. m., at Sri Venkateshwara Temple, Venkatapur, Koratla Mandal. Hence, the charge. 3. When charges under Sections 494 IPC. against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and 494 read with 114 IPC. against Accused Nos. 3 to 25, were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Ex.P1 to P6. On behalf of the accused, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 5. The trial Court acquitted the accused, as there was no evidence on record. Hence, this Revision. 6. Despite the opportunities given to the revision petitioner, none appears nor any representation on behalf of the revision petitioner. Therefore, I have heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 7. Now the point for determination is whether judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. Admittedly, the complainant and her father were not examined as witnesses in the trial Court. After receipt of summons, they refused to give evidence, on the ground that they have no faith in the Courts at Karimnagar and an observation was also made by the trial Court that L.W.1 – Ch. M. Bhagya and her father refused to give their evidence before the trial Court. Therefore, their evidence was rightly closed by the trial Court. Out of five witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3, who were said to be the eye witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution. Except marking their statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation, under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C., nothing has been elicited from them to show that Accused No.1 married Accused No.2 during the subsistence of the first marriage or that Accused Nos. 3 to 25 abetted Accused No.1 to marry Accused No.2. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the Investigating Officers. Their evidence would not disclose the commission of offence by the respondents herein. Law is also well settled that the complainant has to prove both the marriages in accordance with law. In view of the fact that both the marriages, particularly, the second marriage, have not been established, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. Unless it is shown by the petitioner that the trial Court committed an illegality or an improper finding has been given, normally revisional power cannot be exercised by this Court, in view of the fact that the powers of the revisional Court are truncated. None of the finding is shown to be illegal, incorrect or improper, calling interference by this Court. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 9. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed, confirming the judgment, dated 28.09.2000 in C.C.No. 230 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Karimnagar. ---------------------- (K. C. BHANU, J) 14th September 2009 ksld