THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.Nos.257 and 241 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: This Criminal Revision Cases are filed against the judgment, dated 11.02.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2002 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Tirupati whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur in C.C.No.12 of 2000. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners-accused is present and submitted that both sides have compounded the matter. He also referred to the evidence of PW.1 in the trial to that effect. On the last date of hearing i.e. 25.11.2009 it was represented to the court that the parties have compromised the matter and requested the matter to be posted to this day for appearance of the parties. A1 and A2 are present and defacto complainant is not present. The learned counsel submitted that the defacto complainant could not be present in the court due to her ill health. Other than this submission, no material is brought on record about showing her ill-health. It is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the appellate court in its order dated 11-2-2005, which is to the effect that though parties are at liberty to compromise the matter as per the provisions of Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure, they failed to take recourse to the said procedure. None of the parties has taken steps in that direction. Therefore, the appellate court observed that though PW.1 was recalled for cross examination, she deposed not at her own will and conscience. 3. Today also, the defacto complainant (PW.1) is absent in the court though the matter is posted for appearance of the parties. The petitioners- accused are present. Therefore, it can be fairly understood that the defacto complainant is not interested in compounding the offence. 4. In the circumstances, the Criminal Revision Case fails and it is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 26 -11-2009 Stp