THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1333 of 2004 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.01.2004 passed in Summary Trial Case No. 15 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur, whereunder and whereby the accused in ‘A’ party and A.1 & A.2 in ‘B’ party, were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 160 I.P.C. The present revision is preferred by the accused in ‘A’ party. 2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, there was dispute between both the groups of accused with regard to lands and tamarind trees, which is pending before the competent civil court, and due to the same, on 23.1.2003 at 11.30 AM near Kummara Gunta, Karvetinagar, both the accused groups quarrelled with each other, disturbing public peace. 3. When the accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. Upon considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found the accused in both the parties not guilty and accordingly acquitted them. Challenging the same, the accused in ‘A’ party filed the present revision case. 5. Now, the point for determination is whether there are substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal ? 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner lodged the complaint to the police against the respondents 2 and 3 herein, who trespassed into his lands; that the competent civil court granted injunction in favour of the petitioner and therefore the accused in ‘B’ party has no right to interfere with the possession of the petitioner herein, and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal and convict the respondents 2 and 3 herein. 7. None appears for the respondents 2 and 3 inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. 8. The learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that there is no evidence to establish the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 160 I.P.C. and so the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 9. Revisional powers of this court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings of the courts below are shown to be illegal or improper or perverse, normally this Court will not interfere with the same. 10. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this court will not normally disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 11. The offence alleged against the accused in ‘A’ & ‘B’ parties is under Section 160 I.P.C., which provides punishment for committing ‘affray’. Under Section 159 I.P.C., when two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an affray. 12. Admittedly, a civil dispute between the parties is pending before the competent civil court. P.W.1 is said to be an eye-witness to the incident. He did not state that two groups were fighting in a public place and that fighting caused disturbance to the public peace. Therefore, even if the entire evidence of P.W.1 is to be accepted, there is no fighting between the two groups disturbing public peace. However, P.W.1 stated that accused of ‘A’ party caught the tuft of A.2 of ‘B’ party. But, that act by itself is not affray unless fighting had taken place in a public place disturbing public peace. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned order of acquittal. 13. The Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 28.01.2004 passed in Summary Trial Case No. 15 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur. ----------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 24.06.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1333 of 2004 24.06.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1333 of 2004 Date: 24.06.2010 Between: Syed Ameer Basha …Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & others …Respondents