THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.802 of 2002 DATED: 15-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 09-08-1999, passed in C.C.No.112 of 1990 by the learned III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupati. 2. The brief facts are that on coming to know that the respondent herein-accused is selling some house plots, the de facto complainant-petitioner herein, resident of Kotakomala lay out, Tirupati, approached the respondent-accused and the respondent-accused informed that he is the owner of certain plots of land in Chennaiahkunta Revenue village and he is converting the lands into plots and intending to sell the lands and that he formed a society in that connection and collected Rs.200/- from the de facto complainant and others and the de facto complainant purchased one plot bearing No.13 in Sy.Nos.338/1 and 338/2 for Rs.6027/- in the month of March, 1983 and the accused executed a sale deed in favour of the de facto complainant after receiving the consideration, but the accused did not lay any roads or divide the plots. Thereafter, the de facto complainant learnt that the society is nothing but bogus one and the accused either by himself or in the capacity of the Secretary of the said society has no right in the above said lands. The de facto complainant requested the accused to pay the said amount but he did not care. Thus, the accused cheated the de facto complainant by dishonestly inducing him to pay Rs.6027/- to him and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Hence, the Sub Inspector of police, Renigunta police station laid charge sheet against the respondent-accused for the said offence. 3. During the course of trial, 1st petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and two more witnesses were examined on his behalf and Exs.P.1 to P8 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate vide his judgment, dated 09-08-1999, acquitted the respondent-accused. The State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said acquittal. As there was no appeal preferred by the State, the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., filed the present Criminal Revision Case assailing the said judgment. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also on perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. In fact, the learned Magistrate having analyzed the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, while giving cogent reasons, recorded the said acquittal. Further, the scope of the revision against the acquittal is very much limited. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case and the Court below is not justified in recording the acquittal, the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. As the alleged offence took place in the month of 1983 and the respondent-accused has faced the trial and the judgment was pronounced in the year, 1999, this Court, apart from the merits, finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15th July, 2010. Tsy