THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1002 OF 2004 ORDER: 1 Questioning the judgment dated 25.03.2004 passed in C.C.No.4 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Excise, Guntur, the de facto complainant in the said case preferred this revision. 2 The facts that led to filing of the present revision are that 1st respondent is the Managing Director of M/s. Sounder Spinners dealing with cotton at Coimbatore, Tamilnadu State and 2nd respondent is the Proprietor of M/s. Venkateswara Cotton Agencies, Coimbatore and he is acting as broker for the supply of cotton from dealers to the 1st respondent. While so on 28.03.2001 1st respondent purchased 52 bales of cotton for Rs.5,31,350/- from Anna Ramarao through the 2nd respondent at Sangadigunta, Guntur district and the consignment was sent to the 1st respondent through truck bearing No. T.N.41/D/8282 supplied by P.W.2 for hire and the said stock was received by 1st respondent at Coimbatore. Later 1st respondent also purchased 53 bales of cotton for Rs.6,21,448/- from P.W.1 and the same was also sent to the 1st respondent through truck bearing No. TAV 669 driven by P.W.4 and 1st respondent had received the said consignment also. Subsequently 1st respondent paid Rs.4,70,000/- to P.W.1 and the remaining amount was unpaid. In spite of repeated requests, 1st respondent did not pay the said balance amount and hence P.W.1 got issued a legal notice for which 1st respondent got issued a reply stating that he did not purchase any stocks from him directly and that he did all the business only through the 2nd respondent and that he received only one consignment worth Rs.5,10,513/- including lorry freight of Rs.13,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.5,05,000/- through the 2nd respondent and denied the receipt of second consignment. Thus, the 1st respondent with the aid of 2nd respondent misappropriated the stocks supplied to him by P.W.1 and also cheated him. Hence P.W.1 filed a private complaint before the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntur, who endorsed the same to the Station House Officer, Lalapet L &O Police station, Guntur where it was registered as a case in Cr.No.30 of 2002 under sections 406 and 420 of IPC, investigated into and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. 3 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.24. On behalf of defence Ex.D.1 to D.10 were 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 25.03.2004. 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 406 and 420 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 to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law, but cannot give an altogether different 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