THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.733 OF 2005 DATED 6th DECEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : Smt.S.Nagarani .. Petitioner-De facto complainant and K.Balaramaiah & others ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.733 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-de facto complainant challenging the acquittal of accused for the offence punishable under Sections 451, 427 and 435 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) in C.C.No.502 of 2000 by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, by judgment, dated 11.01.2005. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner- complainant was the tenant of a building belonging to A.3 wherein she was running a school. A.3 made an agreement with A.1 to sell the said building. A dispute arose between A.1 and complainant for enhancement of rent. On that complainant filed a suit against A.1 in O.S.No.154 of 2000 and obtained injunction orders, due to which, A.3 bore grudge against the complainant. While so, on 29.02.2000 at about 10.30 a.m. A.3 along with other accused criminally trespassed into the building, demolished the building partly, taken away the furniture and set fire to the records and went away. Hence, the complaint. In order to prove its case, Prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. Though the accused did not adduce any oral evidence, got marked Exs.D.1 to D.5 in their support. After evaluating the entire evidence available on record, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused vide impugned judgment and the same is under challenge in this revision. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and he has wrongly decided the issue and thus prayed to set aside the acquittal order passed by the learned Magistrate. This Court perused the entire records and also the impugned judgment. The learned trial Judge categorically recorded the evidence adduced by the Prosecution. In his judgment, the learned trial Judge held that if really the accused took away the properties of the victim, she ought to have mentioned the same in Ex.P.1-report, which she has not. Further, it is also on record that the occurrence took place on 29.02.2000 and it is also deposed before the Court that the complaint is lodged by the complainant on 29.02.2000 whereas the S.I. of Police, who is the investigating officer, stated that complaint is given only on 07.03.2000 at 8.30 a.m., which clearly shows that after due deliberations, the complaint has been lodged with an intention to implicate the accused. Hence, the learned trial Judge considering the lack of evidence to connect the accused with the crime, acquitted the accused of the said offence. This Court is also of the view that there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned judgment since it does not suffer with any infirmity or perversity and it is well considered. Hence, the revision has to fail. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 06.12.2010 sur