THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1843 OF 2003 ORDER: 1 On the basis of a complaint given by the petitioner herein a case in Cr.No.118 of 1998 was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, II Town P.S. Kavali for the offences punishable under sections 498-A of IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was taken on file by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali as C.C.No.102 of 1999. During the course of trial, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and four more witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 to 5 on her behalf and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. On behalf of the accused – respondents 2 to 5 Exs.D.1 to D.5 were marked but no oral evidence was adduced. Having analysed the said evidence the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused – respondents 2 to 5 and accordingly acquitted them of the said charges by his judgment dated 12.08.2003. Challenging the said judgment, as the State has not chosen to file any appeal, the de facto complainant in the said case preferred this revision. 2 The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the petitioner with the 2nd respondent herein was celebrated on 17.05.1995. At the time of marriage the parents of the petitioners agreed to give Rs.2 lakhs towards dowry. But they gave Rs.1,50,000/- only and fell due in a sum of Rs.50,000/-. After the marriage the petitioner joined the 2nd respondent in his matrimonial house. However, subsequent to the marriage, the respondents 2 to 5 herein used to harass the petitioner for want of additional dowry besides the remaining dowry and they all subjected her to cruelty and mental agony. Though the parents of the petitioner tried to pacify the matter through elders, the same vent in vain. 3 Heard. 4 Having considered the judgment impugned in this revision, this court is of the view that the court below is justified in acquitting the respondents 2 to 5 herein. The documents marked on behalf of the defence in the shape of Ex.D.1 to D.5 supports the version of the respondents herein. The petitioner filed to prove the charges levelled against the respondents herein by letting any independent and cogent evidence. Hence I see no merits in this revision and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed. 5 Further, it should be remembered that this is a revision against acquittal where the scope and jurisdiction of this court under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C are very much restricted. It is only when any material irregularity has been committed by the court below, this court will interfere and that too this court at best can remand the matter to the court below for fresh disposal, but cannot give any altogether different finding. 6 For the above mentioned reasons, this revision is dismissed. -------------- 28.10.2010 Kvsn