THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.924 of 2001 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the State aggrieved by the order, dated 28-10-2000, passed in P.R.C.No.5 of 2000 by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, whereby the respondents herein were discharged. 2. On the basis of a report given by P.W.1 on 17.08.1999 alleging that his daughter-P.W.4, who is aged about 17 years and wife of one Challagondla Adinarayana, was kidnapped by the 1st respondent herein-A1 on 14.08.1999, the police, Rural police station, Bhadrachalam registered a case in Crime No.33 of 1999 against the respondents herein-accused under Section 363 IPC and filed charge sheet under Section 366 IPC and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as P.R.C.No.5 of 2000. 3. During the Course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. Having analyzed the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and accordingly discharged them. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred. 5. As the notices sent by the office were not served on the respondents, this Court directed the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to take out fresh notices and also to furnish the correct address of the 1st respondent herein. Further, this Court by order, dated 06-11-2009, clearly observed that in the event of the petitioner failing to furnish the correct address of the 1st respondent on or before 04- 12-2009, this revision stands dismissed against the 1st respondent. 6. Office has put a note that the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to furnish the correct address of the 1st respondent herein. In the light of the said office note, it is clear that this revision stands dismissed insofar as the 1st respondent, who is the prime accused. Now, this revision lies only against the respondents 2 and 3, who are A2 and A3, and therefore, no orders need be passed in this revision. 7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 29th July, 2010 Tsy