IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.879 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Onteddu Koti Reddy S/o. Govinda Reddy …. Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by S.I. of Police, Nagarampalem L&O PS, Guntur and others …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.879 OF 2010 ORDER: T h e de facto complainant seeks to question acquittal of the respondents 2 to 4 / A-1 to A-3 vide judgment dated 11-01-2010 of the Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur in C.C. No.173 of 2007. 2. On Ex.P-1 report / complaint given by the petitioner / PW-1, Nagarampalem (L&O) Police, Guntur registered the same as case in Crime No.288 of 2006 and issued Ex.P-7 FIR. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-3 in the lower Court. The lower Court framed charge against A-1 to A-3 for offence punishable under Section 420/34 IPC. During trial in the lower court, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7. Ex.D-1 was also marked on behalf of accused. After considering material on record, the lower Court found A-1 to A-3 not guilty of the charge. 3. As per Section 401 (3) Cr.P.C., this Court has no power to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction in a revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 4. Subject matter of the case is 100 square yards of site in survey No.78 of Gorantla Gram Panchayat. Admitted facts are that in the year 1986, A-3 sold the site to A-2 as per Ex.P-3 sale deed. Again A-2 sold the said site to A-1 as per Ex.P-4 sale deed on 11-03-1994. A-1 in his turn sold away the site to PW-1 in the year 2005. It may be immaterial whether PW-1 filed his sale deed or not. But, there is no privity of contract much less representation or fraudulent representation or dishonest representation by A-2 or A-3 to PW-1. Privity of contract was only between A-1 and PW-1 with regard to sale transaction in the year 2005. This is not a case where successive sales took place one after the other immediately. The sales ranged between the year 1986 and the year 2005, for about 19 years. 5. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the case squarely attracts illustration (1) of Section 415 IPC. For attracting the said illustration, there must be proof that A-1 knew that he had no right to the property and that his predecessors also had no title to the property, and it is only thereafter A-1 becomes liable in case he sells the same property to PW-1 knowing the consequences there for. The lower Court after considering evidence on record pointed out that as per Section 420 IPC, there should be dishonest intention on the part of A-1 at the inception of the transaction. Simply because a third party’s name is mentioned in the Adangal, it cannot be said that A-1 had no right in the property. Since A-1 to A-3 were exercising right of title and possession over the said vacant site of 100 square yards, there is every likelihood of A-1 acquiring title even by adverse possession also. All these matters are primarily of civil in nature. PW-1 wanted to convert a civil case into a criminal case by filing private complaint in the lower Court. On consideration of the entire material on record, this Court finds that there are no merits in this revision petition. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 23, 2010 KTL