THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1763 of 2003 ORDER: On the basis of a report given by one Citralwar Narayana (LW.1), a case in Cr.No.122 of 1993 was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Bhainsa Police Station, against the 1st respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and, after investigation, charge sheet was filed which was taken on file as C.C.No.350 of 1995 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nirmal. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P16. However, the de facto complainant, Citralwar Narayana, could not be examined as he died during the course of trial. Having analysed the evidence available on record, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent herein is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and accordingly acquitted him by judgment dated 05.08.2003. As the State has not chosen to file an appeal against the said judgment dated 05.08.2003 passed by the trial Court, the son of de facto complainant approached this Court and filed the present revision. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows. The de facto complainant was the Managing Partner of Sri Durga Cotton Traders, Bhainsa. On 18.04.1993, the accused accompanied by one Angarwar Hanmandlu (P.W.3) went to the de facto complainant and got introduced by P.W.3 to the de facto complainant. The accused posing himself as a businessman dealing in cotton business in the name and style of Anil Industries at Aurangabad produced copies of Sales Tax Certificate and other relevant documents and, thus, made the de facto complainant to believe him. The accused with dishonest intention induced the de facto complainant for sale of 250 cotton bales on credit basis. The accused took delivery of 250 cotton bales in 5 lots from 18.04.1993 to 20.04.1993 promising to pay Rs.9,30,404-57ps within 45 days and also agreed to pay interest @ 2% if the amount is not paid within 45 days and, after taking delivery of the cotton bales, without intimation to the de facto complainant and without making payment, shifted his entire business to Bhilwara of Rajasthan State from Aurangabad. 3. Heard. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and having gone through the entire record, this Court is of the view that this revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits. The scope and jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is very limited. More so, the alleged offence took place in the year 1993 and the revision is of the year 2003 and, in view of the lapse of time, it is not a fit case for interference. Even if this Court finds any material irregularity in the judgment passed by the Court below and ultimately holds that the trial Court erred in acquitting the 1st respondent herein, this Court could only interfere and remand the matter to the Court below for disposal afresh but cannot impose any punishment. Further, as seen from the record and the judgment impugned in this revision, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where interference of this Court is called for since the trial Court is perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the 1st respondent herein is not guilty of the offence alleged against him in the light of the evidence available before it. 5. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 17th September 2010 cvrk