THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.935 of 2004 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case is directed by the complainant against the order of acquittal of the respondents 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 of the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 or 411 IPC by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, vide judgment dated 19.02.2004 in C.C.No.873 of 2001. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 03.09.2001, when the defacto complainant went to Siripuram village from his village by locking his house, all the accused taking advantage of his absence, gained entrance into his house, broke open the locks of the main door gate and committed theft of two teak wood costs out of them one is tape cot, one gas cylinder, one iron stand table and one rice cooker, all worth about Rs.4,000/-. Then the defacto complainant went to the Police Station and reported the theft to the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the same as a case. When a charge under Section 457, 380 or 411 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and MOs 1 to 5. Challenging the same, this revision has been preferred by the complainant. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondents. In a revision against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and that if there is any perversity or illegality on the face of the record, then only this Court interfered with the finding of the lower Court. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner and the respondents are relatives and the case also pertaining to the year 2001, this Court perused the entire records and also the judgment passed by the lower Court. In a revision against acquittal, the appellate Court can interfere when there is possibility of only 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. Considering the above said proposition of law, after perusal of the record and order of the learned Magistrate, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 5th July, 2010. PNV