THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.100 of 2001 DATED:19-08-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner, questioning the judgment, dated 30-10-2000, passed in C.C.No.189 of 1990 by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Kothapeta, whereby the 1st respondent-A4 was acquitted of the offences under Sections 323, 379, 394, 342 r/w 34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that due to some differences between A2 and L.W.1, respondents 2 and 3 herein-A1 and A2 joined together with the common object of secreting and taking away the gold and silver of the complainant’s wife which was in the possession of L.W.1, and A1 along with A5 and A6 gave a false report to A7 alleging that the said gold and silver belongs to A2 and that the complainant and L.W.1 committed theft of the same. A7 sent a word to the complainant and L.W.1 demanding them to return the above said gold and silver to A2. However, the complainant and L.W.1 denied that no such gold and silver of A2 was with them. L.W.2 was also present and informed A7 that no theft was committed, for which A7 threatened to put him in lock up and asked him not to interfere. L.W.2 informed L.W.3, who intervened and got released L.W.1, but the complainant was kept in wrongful custody. This took place on 03-09-1985 on or about 05- 09-1985 or 06-09-1985 and when A1 disputed that no tangible action was taken, A1, A4 and A7 beat the complainant severely and caused bodily pain to him. Thereafter, A5 and A6 forcibly entered into the house of the complainant in Merlapalem while he was ordered wrongful confinement at the office of A7 at Razole and dishonestly took away 10 sovereigns of gold and sixty tulas of silver by threatening L.W.1. When she resisted, A7 took possession of the said articles and thereafter, A3, A4 and A7 forcibly got the signatures of the complainant and L.W.1 under coercion on a paper which was written by A3 and thus coerced them that they would not make any report regarding the above said facts. The complainant was thus kept in wrongful confinement and was released on 09-09-1985. Then the complainant proceeded to Kothapeta hospital on 11-09-1985 as he could not go immediately due to severe pain and fever and got himself treated for the injuries. P.W.4 sent the complainant for better treatment to Kakinada where L.W.5 treated him. The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 09-10-1985 and thereafter he was given in- patient admission chit No.21350. Hence, the complaint. However, as there was no accusation alleged against A4- 1st respondent herein, the complaint against him was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, complainant-petitioner herein approached this Court and filed the present revision. 3. As the notices sent by the office were not yet returned 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 1st respondent herein-accused. Further, this Court by order, dated 05-11-2009, clearly observed that in the event of the petitioner failing to furnish the correct address of the 1st respondent, this revision stands dismissed against the 1st respondent without further reference to the Court. 4. Office has put a note that the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to furnish the correct address of the 1st respondent herein. In the light of the said office note, it is clear that this revision is dismissed insofar as the 1st respondent is concerned. Now, this revision lies against the 8th respondent-State, which is a formal party, and against the respondents 2 to 7, who are not necessary parties, and therefore, no orders need be passed in this revision. 5. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 19th August, 2010. Tsy