THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1051 of 2002 DATED: 03-06-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 25-04-2001, passed in C.C.No.24 of 2001 by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 2. The brief facts are that alleging the offences punishable under Sections 448, 352, 427 and 188 IPC, petitioner gave a report on the basis of which a case in Cr.No.109 of 2000 was registered against the respondents 1 to 3-accused. After investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police, Nunna (R) police station, Vijayawada, filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.24 of 2001. 3. During the course of trial, petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and six more witnesses were examined on his behalf and Exs.P.1 to P9 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.D1 was marked. 4. On an analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate vide his judgment, dated 25-04-2002, acquitted the respondents 1 to 3-accused. The State has not chosen to file any appeal against the said acquittal. 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. 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 7, 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 28-07-2000 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