THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.860 of 2002 DATED: 15-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.3, questioning the judgment, dated 10-11-2000, passed in Crl.A.No.3 of 1999 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, whereby the respondents herein were acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 324 and 323 IPC. 2. On the basis of a report given by the petitioner herein-P.W.3, a case in Cr.No.10 of 1996 was registered against the respondents 2 to 12 herein- accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 324, 448 and 427 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty as C.C.No.181 of 1996 and after trial, the learned Magistrate found the respondents 2 to 12 herein-A1 to A11 guilty of the said offences and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. The same was questioned by the respondents 2 to 12 herein in Crl.A.No.3 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa and the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment, dated 10-11-2000, allowed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed the present revision. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also on perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. In fact, the learned Judge having analyzed the entire evidence on record, while giving cogent reasons, recorded the said acquittal. Further, the scope of the revision against the acquittal is very much limited. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case and the Court below is not justified in recording the acquittal, the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. As the alleged offence took place in 1996 and the respondents 2 to 12-accused have faced the trial and the judgment was pronounced in the year, 2000, this Court, apart from the merits, finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 5. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15th July, 2010. Tsy