THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL R.C. No.1310 OF 2002 ORDER: 1 Petitioner is the de facto complainant and was examined as P.W.1 in C.C.No.12 of 1999 on the file of the court of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate – cum – Mahila Court, Hyderabad and she filed the present revision questioning the judgment passed in the said C.C.12 of 1999 dated 10.06.2002 passed by the learned Magistrate. 2 Brief facts are that the de facto complainant who is P.W.1 in the case on hand was married to the 1st respondent on 22.06.1995 at Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs. P.W.1 is a handicapped. At the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.50,000/- towards dowry to the 1st respondent. After the marriage both P.W.1 and the 1st respondent lived in a house at Balkampet and P.W.1 used to bear the entire expenditure of the family from out of her earnings. Out of their wedlock, P.W.1 begot a female child. Subsequently, the 1st respondent demanded for scooter and accordingly she purchased the same for him. Subsequently on 22.10.1997 the 2nd respondent came to P.W.1 and demanded for money on the ground starting business. When she expressed her inability, the 2nd respondent advised her to sell away the flat purchased by her and the 1st respondent also supported the 2nd respondent. Later the respondents threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences. Thereafter the 1st respondent insisted P.W.1 to come and stay in his parents’ house. When she did not accept the same, the 1st respondent deserted her. Later, being handicapped and due to mental agony and desertion by the 1st respondent, she went to her parents’ house. Subsequently, she submitted a report to the police, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.173 of 1998 and investigated into and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed. 3 To bring home the guilt of the respondents the prosecution got examined P.Ws. 1 to 13 and also exhibited Exs.P1 and P2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence. 4 As stated supra, after analysing the entire evidence available on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the respondents for the offences, which they were charged and accordingly acquitted them. Hence the present revision. 5 However, against the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.86 of 2004 and this court vide its judgment dated 18.06.2008, having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the respondents, dismissed the said appeal. In fact, this revision and the appeal should have been heard together. But, the pendency of this revision was not brought to the notice of this court when the appeal was decided. In the light of the observations made by this court while dismissing the Criminal Appeal preferred by the State, in my considered view, this revision is also liable to be dismissed and accordingly this revision is dismissed. -------------- 03.06.2010 kvsn