THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1086 of 2002 DATED: 03-06-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 18-06-2002, passed in C.C.No.140 of 1999 by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku. 2. The brief facts are that the marriage of the petitioner herein took place with the 1st respondent-A1 herein on 27-09-1995. Subsequently, as the respondents 1 to 5 herein subjected the petitioner herein to mental and physical harassment for additional dowry and even beat her indiscriminately and threatened to kill her on 28-12-1998, she gave a report to the police, Nidadavole police station, who registered a case in Cr.No.3 of 1999 under Sections 498-A and 506(2) IPC and after conducting preliminary investigation, transferred the same to Iragavaram police station on the point of jurisdiction. On receipt of the same, the Station House Officer, Iragavaram police station registered the same as a case in Cr.No.1 of 1999 under Sections 498-A and 506(2) r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, A1 to A5 obtained anticipatory bail from the Court of the learned I Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District in Crl.M.P.No.103 of 1999 and surrendered themselves in the Court of the learned II Additional Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur on 02-02-1999 and enlarged on bail. After investigation, police filed the charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.140 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506(2) r/w 34 IPC. 3. During the course of trial, petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and nine more witnesses were examined on her behalf and Exs.P.1 to P9 were marked. The respondent has not chosen to examine anybody but marked Exs.D1 to D19. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate vide his judgment, dated 18-06-2002, acquitted the respondents 1 to 5 herein-A1 to A5. The State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said acquittal. As there was no appeal preferred by the State, the petitioner, 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. 5. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and also perusing the 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 10, 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 on 28-12-1998 and the respondents 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. 7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 03rd June, 2010. Tsy