THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.736 of 2002 DATED: 15-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 20-05-2002, passed in C.C.No.61 of 1999 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner herein- de facto complainant, wife of A1-1st respondent herein lodged a complaint before the police stating that her marriage was performed with A1 in April, 1996 and at that time she gave Rs.50,000/-; one Hero Honda motor cycle and other household articles, worth Rs.2,00,000/,- towards dowry, however her husband and in-laws-A1 to A3 are harassing her for additional dowry. Based on the said complaint, the Inspector of police, Jeedimetla police station registered a case in Cr.No.413 of 1998 under Section 498-A IPC and transferred the same to the Women police station, Rangareddy District. During the course of investigation, the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 were recorded; accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal has taken the case on file as C.C.No.61 of 1999. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P3 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate vide judgment, dated 20-05-2002, acquitted the respondents 1 to 3 herein-A1 to A3. The State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said acquittal. 5. As there was no appeal preferred by the State, the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., filed the present Criminal Revision Case assailing the said judgment. 6. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be interfered with. In fact, the learned Magistrate having analyzed the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, while giving cogent reasons, recorded the said acquittal. Further, the scope of the revision against the acquittal is very much limited. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case and the Court below is not justified in recording the acquittal, the maximum that can be done is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. As the alleged offence took place in 1998 and the respondents 1 to 3 herein-accused have faced the trial and the judgment was pronounced in the year, 2002, this Court, apart from the merits, finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 15th July, 2010. Tsy