THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2022 of 2004 ORDER: 1 Questioning the judgment dated 30.08.2004 passed in C.C.No.251 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I class, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District, the de facto complainant in the said case preferred this revision. 2 The facts that led to filing of the present revision are that the marriage of the petitioner herein was celebrated with the first respondent on 21.2.1996. Respondents 2 & 3 are the parents of the first respondent. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was given towards dowry to the accused out of the agreed amount of Rs.5 lakhs and the said balance amount of Rs.3 lakhs was also given subsequently. However, the respondents / accused not satisfied with the said amount which was given towards dowry, used to harass the petitioner to get additional dowry from her parents. Though the matter was placed before elders, the respondents / accused did not mend their attitude and left the petitioner at her parents’ house. Thereafter the petitioner lodged a complaint with police upon which P.W.7 registered a case in Cr.No.122 of 1999, investigated into the crime and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under sections 498-A of IPC and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3 During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17. However, the defence could succeed in getting marked Exs.D.1 to D.4. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the respondents for the charged offences and accordingly acquitted them by judgment dated 30.08.2004. As stated supra, questioning the said judgment, the de facto complainant preferred this revision. 4 Heard both sides. 5 Having gone through the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the view that the said findings given by the court below needs no interference. The learned magistrate while appreciating the entire evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondents are not guilty of the said offences punishable under sections 498-A of IPC and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which in my considered view, needs no interference. Further, this is a revision filed against an order of acquittal under sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, under which the scope and jurisdiction of this court is very much limited. The said jurisdiction can be invoked by this court in rarest of rare cases when the lower court has committed a gross error or not followed the relevant provisions of law in proper perspective. That too, even if the court below commits any error apparent this court at best can remand the matter the matter to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law, but cannot give an altogether finding. Here in this case, the finding of the court below is based on sound appreciation of the evidence available on record, and hence, the said finding needs no interference. 6 Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. -------------- 28.01.2011 Kvsn