IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 944 of 2010 (Criminal Revision case under Section:_______ against the Judgment in NO : dated ______ on the file of the Court of the aggrieved by the judgment and order of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad dated 26-02-2009 passed in C.C. No. 197 of 1998, the above named petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case. preferred against the order in CC 197 1997 dated 26/02/2009 on the file of the Court of the ) Between: Smt. Jaslina Sahani (Earlier name was Jaslina Ghai) D/o. G.S. Sahani R/o. Flat No. 107, A.P. Text Book Colony, Near Karkhana, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Kanwardeep Ghai @ Winky S/o. Col. Harbans Singh Merchant Navy, T.I. Shipping, Canada Limited, R/o. 11B, Dolphin Apartments, Pilot Bundar Road, Kolaba, Mumbai. 3 Mrs. Khushi Badruddin W/o. Lt.Col. Syed R/o. 11B, Dolphin Apartments, Pilot Bundar Road, Kolaba, Mumbai. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : PSR, J. Crl.R.C.No. 944 of 2010 Judgment: This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad in C.C.No.197 of 1997, where under the learned Magistrate acquitted the present respondent Nos.2 and 3 (A-1 and A-2) for the offences under sections 498A IPC and S. 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, while convicting them for the offence under section 406 IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. A reading of the judgment of the learned Magistrate reveals that the material available on record, the evidence, both oral and documentary, were elaborately considered by the lower court before arriving at the conclusion for acquitting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein for the offences under sections 498A and S.6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, while convicting them for the offence under section 406 IPC. 4. I do not see any merit in this revision case and accordingly it is dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:30—04—2010. *BVS