IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2041 of 2009 Between: Veerla Rama Mohana Rao, S/o.Narasimha Rao, Aged about 58 years, R/o.Poranki, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. - - - Petitioner. AND 1. Veerla Sridevi, W/o.Prudhvi Kumar, Aged about 25 Years, R/o.Venuturumilli village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District. 2. The State of A.P., Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2041 of 2009 ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity), to set aside the Order dated 12-10-2009 made in Crl.M.P. No.3783 of 2009 in Domestic Violence Case No.2 of 2008, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada, Krishna District. 2. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 104 Cr.P.C. seeking to impound the unregistered and unstamped Relinquishment Deed, dated 10-03-2002, said to have been executed by the deceased, who is husband of respondent No.1 in favour of the revision petitioner and another. The said petition was allowed. Challenging the same, the present Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner contending that the trial Court has erroneously directed to impound the document in question without referring it to the competent authority under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 3. There cannot be any dispute that the powers of the Revisional Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be incorrect, illegal or improper, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the same. Section 104 Cr.P.C. reads as follows : “Any Court may, if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before it under this Code.” 4. As per Section 104 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court has rightly impounded the document. Hence, there are no compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the order under challenge. 5. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that on earlier occasion, the petitioner herein is ready to execute 1/3rd of the property in favour of the minor grand children of first respondent. With that liberty, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ___________________ K.C. BHANU, J. Date: 20-01-2010. DSH.