THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.586 of 2004 DATED: 03-06-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 23-12-2003, passed in C.C.No.295 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur. 2. The brief facts are that the marriage of the petitioner herein took place with the 1st respondent- accused on 31-05-2002. Subsequently, the 1st respondent started harassing her both physically and mentally for dowry and on 01-07-2002 he beat her and drove her out of their house. Based on a complaint given by the petitioner herein, the Sub-Inspector of police, Punganur police station registered a case in Cr.No.76 of 2002 under Section 498-A IPC and after investigation filed a charge sheet against the 1st respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.295 of 2002. 3. During the course of trial, petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and seven more witnesses were examined on his behalf and Exs.P.1 to P8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents-accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.D1 to D6 were marked. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate vide his judgment, dated 23-12-2003, acquitted the 1st 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 perusing the 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 8, 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 on 01-07-2002 and the respondents have faced the trial and the judgment was pronounced in the year, 2003, 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 03rd June, 2010. Tsy