THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.524 OF 2005 DATED 24th JUNE, 2011. BETWEEN : K.Rajamalla Reddy … Revision Petitioner- De facto complainant and 1) Rayaker Rao Rajaiah 2) The State of A.P. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.524 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner-de facto complainant challenging the judgment dated 30.09.2004 rendered in C.C.No.156 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Karimnagar, wherein the R.1-accused was acquitted under Section 255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code. Heard. The allegation levelled against the accused is that on 23.10.2001 at 12.00 noon he entered into the chamber of the revision petitioner-de facto complainant, General Manager of KDCC Bank Ltd. Karimnagar, without his permission and abused him in filthy language in the presence of his subordinates and caused dislocation of his duties beside causing mental agony and insult. In order to prove its case, Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. On behalf of the accused, DW.1 was examined and Exs.D.1 and D.2 are marked. After evaluating the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate rendered the impugned judgment opining that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. On perusal of the evidence, P.W.1 has not stated anything regarding the filthy language uttered by the accused except stating the fact that the accused abused him in Telugu ‘niku emi vasthadira niku telugu radu English radu arthamukadu”. As far as allegation that accused forcibly tried to assault is concerned, the same is not mentioned in Ex.P.1 or the same is stated before the investigation officer. P.W.2 deposed only regarding the entry of the respondent- accused into the chambers of P.W.1, but he has not stated the abusive words alleged to have used by the accused or as to what type of force was used by the accused to deter the public servant. Considering the above said evidence, this Court is of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 24.06.2011 sur