THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1798 of 2003 ORDER: On the basis of a report given by Muralidhar Baradia (PW.1), a case in Cr.No.73 of 1993 was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Bhainsa Town Police Station, against the 1st respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and, after investigation, charge sheet was filed which was taken on file as C.C.No.347 of 1995 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nirmal. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. Having analysed the evidence available on record, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent herein is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and accordingly acquitted him by judgment dated 05.08.2003. As the State has not chosen to file an appeal against the said judgment dated 05.08.2003 passed by the trial Court, the de facto complainant approached this Court and filed the present revision. 2. Heard. 3. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and having gone through the entire record, this Court is of the view that this revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits. The scope and jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is very limited. More so, the alleged offence took place in the year 1993 and the revision is of the year 2003 and, in view of the lapse of time, it is not a fit case for interference. Even if this Court finds any material irregularity in the judgment passed by the Court below and ultimately holds that the trial Court erred in acquitting the 1st respondent herein, this Court can only interfere and remand the matter to the Court below for disposal afresh but cannot impose any sentence. Further, as seen from the record and the judgment impugned in this revision, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where interference of this Court is called for since the trial Court is perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the 1st respondent herein is not guilty of the offence alleged against him in the light of the evidence available before it. 4. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 17th September 2010 cvrk