THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.763 of 2001 DATED: 29-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner-de facto complainant, questioning the judgment, dated 28-03-2001, passed in C.C.No.650 of 1999 by the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, whereby the 2nd respondent herein-accused was acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 461, 427 and 380 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on a report given by the petitioner herein, the police, IV Town Law & Order police station, Visakhapatnam registered a case against the 2nd respondent herein-accused in Cr.No.162 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 461, 427 and 380 IPC and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.650 of 1999. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to 5 were marked besides M.Os.1 to 22. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. Having analyzed the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed in proving the guilt of the accused and accordingly acquitted the accused as stated supra. As against the same, the State has not chosen to file any appeal. Hence, the de facto complainant approached this Court and filed the present revision. 5. As the notices sent by the office were not served on the respondents, this Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out fresh notices and also to furnish the correct address of the 2nd respondent herein-accused. Further, this Court by order, dated 06-11-2009, clearly observed that in the event of the petitioner failing to furnish the correct address of the 2nd respondent on or before 04-12-2009, this revision stands dismissed. 6. Office has put a note that the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to furnish the correct address of the 2nd respondent herein. In the light of the said office note, it is clear that this revision stands dismissed insofar as the 2nd respondent is concerned. Now, this revision lies only against the State, which is a formal party and therefore, no orders need be passed in this revision. 7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 29th July, 2010. Tsy