HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1947 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner- P.W.1 against the judgment dated 03.08.2004 passed in C.C.No.162 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, acquitting the respondent No. 2/accused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that on behalf of A-1, A-2 and A-3 went to Sivareddypalem and took the cotton from P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the ryots, promising them to pay the amount for the said cotton. Subsequently, the accused escaped with the said stocks without paying any amount to P.Ws.1 to 3. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before P.W.4 and basing on which a case in Crime No.270 of 2002 was registered and after completion of investigation, P.W.4- the Sub Inspector of Police, Guntur Taluk Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and that the accused was tried for the said offence. The case against A-1 and A- 2 was separated and numbered as C.C.No.193 of 2003 since N.B.Ws are pending against them. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 to prove the guilt of the accused. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. against Accused No.3 and accordingly acquitted him. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner-P.W.1 preferred this criminal revision. Heard both sides. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and also perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove that A-3 purchased the cotton from P.Ws.1 to 3 with a mala fide intention to cheat them, which in my considered view, needs no interference. Further, this is a revision filed against the judgment of acquittal under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. under which the scope and jurisdiction of this Court is very much limited. The said jurisdiction can be invoked by this Court in rarest of rare cases when the Court below has committed a gross error or not followed the relevant provisions of law in proper perspective. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that it is a fit case for interference the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Here in this case, the finding of the Court below is based on sound appreciation of evidence available on record and hence the said finding needs no interference. I find no merit in this revision. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 24-02-2011 Gsn.