HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1693 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner- P.W.1 against the judgment dated 09.07.2003 passed in C.C.No.332 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the XVI-Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, acquitting the respondents 1 and 2/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120 (B) and 109 of I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that accused No.1 is the father of A-2 and A-3. Accused No.1 has sold his two houses bearing No.16- 4-480 and 481 situated at Chenchalaguda, Hyderabad, which were gifted to A-2 and A-3 under a registered gift deed, to P.W.1 under a registered sale deed dated 29.07.1997. Thereafter, it came to light that a partition suit is pending among the brothers of A-2 and A-3 in respect of the said property. Thus, the accused cheated P.W.1. During the course of trial, A-1, who is the father of A-2 and A-3, died and that the case against him was abated. The petitioners-A2 and A3 tried for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120 (B) and 109 of I.P.C. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences against the accused with which they were charged and accordingly acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-P.W.1 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and also perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, rightly held that the prosecution has failed to produce cogent and corroborative evidence to prove the case against the accused, which in my considered view, needs no interference. Further, this is a revision filed against the judgment of acquittal under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. under which the scope and jurisdiction of this Court is very much limited. The said jurisdiction can be invoked by this Court in rarest of rare cases when the Court below has committed a gross error or not followed the relevant provisions of law in proper perspective. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case for interference the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Here in this case, the finding of the Court below is based on sound appreciation of evidence available on record and hence the said finding needs no interference. I find no merit in this revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 17-02-2011 Gsn.