HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRL.R.C.No.539 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Even though the matter is posted under the caption of ‘orders’, none appeared for the revision petitioner/defacto complainant nor any representation is made on his behalf. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is to be disposed of basing on the material available on record. This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner- defacto complainant against judgment dated 22.10.2003 passed in C.C.No.188 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, Anantapur District. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On the intervening night of 05/06.04.2002 at Kodigenahalli village fields, all the accused trespassed into the Mango garden of the defacto complainant and cut the Mango trees with sickles and caused loss of Rs.50,000/-. Subsequently, on the basis of a report given by the defacto complainant, P.W.6-Sub Inspector of Police, Parigi Police Station registered the case in Crime No. 14 of 2002 and investigated into the same and after the completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Respondents/A1 to A6 under Sections 447, 452 and 427 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and later the Respondents /A1 to A6 were tried for the said offences. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the ownership of the defacto complainant over the property and hence the chargers were not proved and accordingly acquitted the Respondents-A1 to A6 of the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/defacto complainant preferred this criminal revision. Therefore, what is to be seen is as to whether the ownership of defacto complainant was properly established and consequently whether the charges against the Respondents/A1 to A6 are established ? I have gone through the record. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to establish the ownership of defacto complainant over the property in question and also failed to prove that the respondents/A1 to A6 trespassed into the land. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the Respondents/A1 to A6 of the charges levelled against them. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 27.6.2011 pnb