THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.735 OF 2005 DATED 22nd OCTOBER, 2010. Between : Md.Hafeez ..Petitioner-P.W.1 and Mohd.Akbar & others ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.735 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the petitioner-De facto complainant being aggrieved by the judgment, dated 29.01.2005, rendered in Calendar Case No.935 of 2003 by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, wherein the learned Magistrate acquitted respondents 1 to 4 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.07.2003 at about 5.00 p.m. A.1 to A.4 trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, damaged the store room with stones and when the same was questioned by the complainant and his son, accused also threatened them at the point of knives and stones. On receipt of written report from the complainant, Police registered a case in crime No.81 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of entire investigation, Police filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.4. When examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, A.1 to A.4 pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the incriminating material read over to them, which is available in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses. They failed to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary on their behalf. After careful examination of the evidence placed before him, the learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offences alleged against them on the ground that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not convincing and cogent and they have motive against the accused. It was further observed by the learned Magistrate that the complaint was lodged by the complainant two days after the occurrence, which clearly indicates that the complainant intended to implicate the accused. This Court also perused the entire record and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In a revision against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very limited and if there is any perversity or illegality appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the trial Court. It is well settled that in a revision against acquittal, the Appellate Court can interfere only when there is possibility of one view, which is binding towards the guilt of the accused. When there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Considering the above said proposition of law and after perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 22.10.2010 sur