HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.315 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the complainant against the order of acquittal dated 27.08.2007 in C.C.No.64 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judicial I Class Magistrate for Excise, Guntur, finding the accused-respondents 1 to 8 herein not guilty of the offences for which they were charged. 2. The complainant-P.W.1 filed a private complaint against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 447, 427, 506 and 324 r/w Section 149 IPC alleging that his father purchased Paris Lodge from late Mohammad Kutti, A.2 and A.3 under an agreement of sale dated 25.02.1995 for a valuable consideration of Rs.11 lakh and possession of the same was handed over to his father. As his father is having reputation and running the business successfully, egged on by rest of the accused, A.2 and A.3 wanted to resile from the agreement. In pursuance of their evil intention, A.4 to A.6 in association with other accused occupied the joint passage and demanding several lakhs of rupees from his father for vacating the same. While so, on 06.11.1996 at about 11.00 a.m. the accused with a common object of belaboring him, his father and brother-P.W.3 armed with rods, stones, etc. trespassed into the Paris Lodge hurling obscene abuses and threatened them with dire consequences if they do not peacefully retreat from the place and hand over possession of the same and cancel the agreement of sale. When they refused to yield to the bullying tactics and threats of the accused, all the accused beat them with stones and iron rods. The accused also damaged the samans and committed theft of spare parts of a bus. The plea of the accused was of total denial. 3. In order to prove his case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. On behalf of defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. After evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate came to a conclusion that the complainant failed to prove his case and accordingly acquitted the accused of the offences for which they were charged. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant preferred this Criminal Appeal. 5. This Court heard both sides and perused the entire record and also the evidence adduced by the complainant. 6. This Court is not inclined to go into the case in detail, because the learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence, acquitted the accused on the following grounds: i. Even though the occurrence took place on 06.11.1996, the complaint was filed on 28.10.1997 i.e. after lapse of about one year. ii. P.W.1’s father also accompanied P.W.1 to supervise the renovation of a part of the Paris Lodge, but he was not examined, though he was cited as witness to the occurrence. iii. Earlier to the alleged incident, accused No.3 filed a report against P.Ws.1 and 2 and others and as a counter blast to it, P.W.1 filed the present complaint. 7. It is well settled proposition of law that in an appeal against an order of acquittal, if there are two views are possible on the basis of evidence adduced and, one, which is in favour of the accused, is considered and the accused is acquitted of the offence, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 8. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and the said judgment does not suffer with any infirmity or perversity and there is no apparent error on the face of the record also. 9. Hence, the Criminal Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 18th January, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.315 of 2008 (Dismissed) 18th January, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.315 of 2008 Dated:18-01-2011 BETWEEN: Syed Gaffar …Appellant/ Complainant AND Mohammad Ummar and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: