THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.706 OF 2005 DATED 12th NOVEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : P.Bhaskar Reddy ..Petitioner-De facto complainant and 1) Shaik Jilani Basha 2) The State of A.P. ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.706 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the petitioner-complainant against the judgment, dated 11.12.2003, rendered in C.C.No.282 of 2002 by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cuddapah, wherein the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 418 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). Heard. The allegations against the accused are that he introduced one Naidu Raju of Alamkhampalli to the bank manager and other bank officials and on 17.01.2002 said Raju pledged 136 grams of gold jewels as genuine and obtained a loan of Rs.34,000/- and the accused also signed as surety to said Raju. Being the appraiser, the accused certified the jewels pledged by Raju to be genuine and the said loan was also cleared on 24.03.2002. Further, on the same day, said Raju again pledged 228 grams of gold jewel and obtained a loan of Rs.57,000/- and the accused certified those jewels to be original and misguided and cheated the bank. Likewise, the accused also certified the jewel pledged by one Jaya, who obtained loan of Rs.48,000/- by pledging 192 grams of jewel. In the inspection of the General Manager of the bank on 11.04.2002 the jewel pledged by Naidu Raju and Jaya were found to be not gold. Hence, the case. In the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate observed that there is no evidence to prove that the present petitioner is the valuer, who has to certify the jewel. He also observed that the accused introduced said Naidu Raju, who claims to be the fictitious person, for the first time and also stood as surety to him when said Raju obtained loan in the first instance but subsequently said Raju has redeemed the jewel and again pledged the same for the second time at which time the petitioner-accused was not the surety. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that even though the accused introduced one person to the Bank, it is the duty of P.W.1-the branch Manager to verify whether such person is residing in the address given after due verification only he should have allowed Raju to open an account or pledge jewels. As rightly pointed out by the learned Magistrate there are lot of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. It is the duty of the prosecution to examine the investigating officer to confront the evidence adduced by the witnesses. In the present case, the investigating officer was not examined and there is no reason adduced by the Prosecution for non-examination of the investigating officer. In the absence of examination of the investigating officer, the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the accused. Further it is well settled that in a revision against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is binding towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 12.11.2010 sur