HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Criminal Revision Case Nos.763 and 764 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: These two revision cases are directed on the basis of the report given by the petitioner, S.Janardhana Rao, where the Sub- Inspector of Police, Chilakalapudi, registered Crime No.77 of 1999 against the respondents in these two matters. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.300 of 1999. During the course of trial, prosecution examined several witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. Having analyzed the said oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate came to a conclusion that the prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused and found them guilty. The accused carried the matter in appeals in Crl.A.Nos.42 and 43 of 2002 where the lower appellate Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the respondents. The State has not chosen to file any appeal. Hence, the petitioner i.e., the de facto-complainant approached this Court and filed these two revision cases. The brief facts of the case are that A-1 to A-3 are residents of Edepalli of Machilipatnam Town and A-4 is resident of Rajupeta Area in Machilipatnam. All the accused are friends and close associates. P.W.1, Saggurthi Janardhana Rao, is also resident of Edepalli in Machilipatnam Town. P.W.1, A-2, P.W.4, Raja Sekhar Babu, L.W.6, M.Rajasekhar and some others formed into an association to get loan under C.M.E.Y.Scheme. They applied for a loan of Rs.85,000/- and the loan was granted by the authorities. But A-2 with a dishonest intention forged the signature of P.W.4 as one of the members of the said society and withdrew Rs.42,500/- from the K.D.C.C.Bank, Machilipatnam Branch, as first installment of loan. P.W.1 and P.W.4, having come to know all this, reported the matter to the District Collector, Krishna, and also the K.D.C.C.Bank Authorities and other higher officials. Consequently, further payment of the loan of Rs.42,500/- was stopped by the authorities. For this, A-2 bore grudge against P.W.1 and was waiting for an opportunity to wreak vengeance against him and his sons. On 2-7-99 at about 11 PM, P.W.1 and his another son Naresh (P.W.2) while going towards R.T.C.bus stand center in Machilipatnam to buy medicines reached the R.T.C. bus stand A-1 to A-4 attacked them and A-1 beat P.W.1 on his mouth with his hand and A-2 beat him with a stone and A-3 kicked him on his stomach and A-4 kicked him on his chest. When his son Naresh tried to prevent the accused from assaulting his father, A-1 to A- 4 beat him with hands and kicked him and threw him down. P.W.3, P.Laxmoji, L.W.3 P.Ramoji, L.W.7, K.Venkata Ramana and some others witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 and P.W.2 having received injuries went to the Chilakalapudi Police Station on the same day night at about 1.30 AM and P.W.1 gave a report to the police. P.W.5, K.Nageswara Rao H.C., received the report and registered a case as Cr.No.77 of 1999 under Sections 324, 506 and 465 read with Section 34 IPC and sent P.Ws.1 and 2 to the Government Hospital, Machilipatnam, for examination and treatment. Thereafter, P.W.8, G.Rajiv Kumar the S.I.of Police took up further investigation in this case and examined the witnesses and inspected the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. P.W.6, Dr.Seshu Kumar, examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on the same day night and P.W.7, Dr.Amareswara Rao, took X-Ray of the injuries received by P.W.1, and P.W.6, basing on the X-ray report of P.W.7, issued wound certificates to P.Ws.1 and 2 opining that P.W.1 received 5 injuries and the injury he received on the lower jaw is a grievous injury and the other injuries are simple in nature, whereas P.W.2 received simple injuries. After the lower Court charged A-1 to A-4 under Section 325 read with Section 34 and 506 IPC and further charged A-1 under Section 506 IPC and A-2 was further charged under Section 465 IPC, the State withdraw the case against A-2 under Section 465 IPC. Therefore, all the accused were tried by the lower court for the remaining charges and that they were convicted and sentenced and A-2 to A-4 were acquitted for the charge under Section 506 IPC. Aggrieved by the said convictions and sentences A-1 to A-3 preferred one appeal and A-4 preferred another appeal separately, which were allowed and the accused were acquitted. Heard. In my considered view, the judgment of the lower appellate Court in these two revisions is perfectly justified and no interference is called for. Further, it should be remembered that this is a revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. where this Court’s power is very much restricted and even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the respondents are guilty of the offence, the only relief that would be granted by this Court is to remand the matter to trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law and cannot impose any sentence. Further, the alleged offence is dated 02/07/1999. Hence, this Court is of the view that these two revisions cannot be entertained at this length of time. Accordingly, these two Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 29th July, 2010 SKM