THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.601 OF 2005 DATED 24th NOVEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : R.Venkata Prasad Rao .. Petitioner-De facto complainant and The State of A.P. & another ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.601 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-de facto complainant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.11.2002 rendered in Calendar Case No.399 of 2001 wherein the learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, acquitted the second respondent herein under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 419 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). The Prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused worked as Head Constable in A.C.B. from the year 1983 to 1987. Taking the same as advantage, he started posing himself as S.I. in A.C.B. and started blackmailing some officers especially in Commercial Tax Department to extract money on large scale towards bribe and also infusing them in case of paying huge bribes the petitions received against them will be dropped. Likewise, he started harassing L.W.1 R.Venkata Prasad Rao to shell down Rs.1 lakh to drop petitions received against him by ACB. On 06.11.2001 at 10.00 a.m. accused went to the house of L.W.1 and demanded money. Having suspected his bonafides, L.W.1 caught hold him and handed over him at Police Station along with a written report. Basing on the above complaint, Police registered a case in Crime No.283/2001 under Section 420 IPC and after completion of entire investigation, they filed charge sheet against the accused. Case was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Further, the learned Magistrate examined the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C., in which, he denied the allegations levelled against him. A charge under Section 419 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, he denied and claimed for trial. In order to prove its case, Prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the incriminating evidence read over to him, which is available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Though he did not choose to adduce any oral evidence on his behalf, he got marked Exs.D.1 and D.2 in his support. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused as stated above. Heard. This Court carefully gone through the impugned judgment and also the other material available on record. In a revision against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if there is any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the lower Court. It is well settled that in a revision against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of 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 and after perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 24th November, 2010. sur