THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.998 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 Questioning the judgment dated 01.04.2004 passed in C.C.No.977 of 2002 by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada, the de facto complainant in the said case preferred this revision. 2 The facts that led to filing of the present revision are that the marriage of the petitioner herein was celebrated with the first respondent on 29.05.1994. Respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the first respondent. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.50,000/- besides other valuable articles were given towards dowry to the respondents. However, the respondents / accused not satisfied with the said amount which was given towards dowry, used to harass the petitioner to get additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs from her parents. Not being able to bear with the harassment meted out by the respondents, the petitioner lodged a complaint with police upon which, a case in Cr.No.594 of 2002 was registered and investigated into by the Station House Officer, L & O II town P.S. and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under sections 498-A of IPC. 3 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. On behalf of defence D.1 was marked but no oral evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the respondents for the charged offences and accordingly acquitted them by judgment dated 01.04.2004. As stated supra, questioning the said judgment, the de facto complainant preferred this revision. 4 Heard both sides. 5 Having gone through the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the view that the said findings given by the court below needs no interference. The learned magistrate while appreciating the entire evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondents are not guilty of the said offences punishable under sections 498-A of IPC, which in my considered view, needs no interference. Further, this is a revision filed against an order of acquittal under sections 397 & 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 lower court has committed a gross error or not followed the relevant provisions of law in proper perspective. That too, even if the court below commits any error apparent, this court, at best, can remand the matter the matter to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law, but cannot give an altogether finding. Here in this case, the finding of the court below is based on sound appreciation of the evidence available on record, and hence, the said finding needs no interference. 6 Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. --------------- 03.02.2011 Kvsn