THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1001 of 2003 JUDGMENT: On the basis of a report given by the petitioner herein, the Inspector of Police, C.I.D., City Zone, Hyderabad, registered a case against the first respondent herein-accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who took cognizance of the same and treated it as C.C.No.246 of 1996. The first respondent herein was tried by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in the said CC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-32 were marked. On behalf of defence, none was examined, but Exs.D-1 to D-11 were marked. The learned Magistrate having analysed the entire evidence by his judgment, dated 09.04.2003, found the first respondent herein- accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. As the State has not chosen to file any appeal challenging the said judgment of the Court below, the de facto complainant in the said Crime filed the present Criminal Revision Case invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. As the de facto complainant filed this Criminal Revision Case as party-in-person, this Court ordered notice to the party-in-person, but, however, he has not chosen to appear before this Court. Hence, this Court looked into the record and heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent- State. Though the first respondent is served with notice, he has not chosen to put in his appearance. Having perused the impugned judgment rendered by the Court below, this Court is of the considered view that the Court below is justified in imposing a rigorous imprisonment of one year on the first respondent herein- accused, apart from imposing fine of Rs.1,000/-, which needs no interference. Further, it is to be seen that this is a Revision filed by the de facto complainant seeking to enhance the sentence imposed on the first respondent- accused by the Court below through the impugned judgment. Even if this Court comes to a conclusion that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the second respondent-accused by the Court below is to be enhanced, this Court cannot alter the same. At best, this Court can remand the matter to the Court below for passing further orders. As the impugned judgment was rendered by the Court below on 09.04.2003, at this length of time, this Court is not inclined to remand the matter to the Court below and accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 30th September 2010 dr