THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.717 of 2002 DATED: 15-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 09-06-2000, passed in C.C.No.134 of 1998 by the learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the year, 1982 the petitioner herein fell in love with the 1st respondent herein-accused and married him, led happy marital life for some time and had begotten three children. Subsequently, the 1st respondent suspected the fidelity of the petitioner herein; started ill-treating her and finally on 30-04-1998, at about 10.00 p.m. beat her with stick and caused bleeding injuries. Based on a complaint given by the petitioner herein, a case was registered against the 1st respondent herein-accused and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.134 of 1998. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P6 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate vide his judgment, dated 09-06-2000, acquitted the 1st respondent herein. 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 6, 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 30-04-1998 and the 1st respondent-accused has faced the trial and the judgment was pronounced in the year, 2000, 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