THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1953 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 The petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1, gave report to the Station House Officer, Narsapur (Rural) P.S. stating that while she and the first accused were in Gulf Country by virtue of their jobs, A.1 made believe and induced her with a dishonest intention and promised to marry her developed sexual contact with her and also induced and made believe her to purchase landing her favour. Believing his words P.W.1 gave Rs.1 lakh to him. At that time the other two accused also used to live in Dubai. But the accused having taken away the said amount did not purchase any land in her name. The first accused also intended to marry another girl. When P.W.1 retuned to India and questioned the accused, A.1 bluntly refused to marry her and all the accused threatened her and her parents with dire consequences. Thus all the accused cheated her with a dishonest intention. In that connection a case in Cr.No.11 of 2002 was registered and after investigation the police filed the charge sheet. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.38 of 2002 by the court below for the offences punishable under sections 420, 417 and 506(2) r/w 34 of IPC. 2 During the course of trial the prosecution examined 7 witnesses as P.w.1 to 7 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.3. The court below having assessed the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charged offences and accordingly acquitted them. As against the said judgment dated 29.09.2003, since the State has not chosen to file any appeal, the de facto complainant who was examined as P.W1 in the said case has filed this revision. 3 Heard. 4 Having gone through the entire material available on record, this court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference. There are so many contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 herself. From the material available on record it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences and accordingly the court below, having gone through all the material aspects, has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused. 5 Further, this is a revision against acquittal preferred under sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C under which the jurisdiction of this court is very limited. It is only when any material irregularity has been committed by the court below, this court will interfere and that too this court at best can remand the matter to the court below for fresh disposal. But it cannot give any altogether different finding. 6 Accordingly this revision is dismissed. -------------- 09.11.2010 Kvsn