ORDER:

Assailing the judgment dated 28.07.2011 in Crl.A.No.306 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), East Godavari at Rajahmundry, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the judgment dated 27.11.2009 in C.C.No.1761 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”).

2. The revision case was admitted on 05.08.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2392 of 2011.

3. The petitioner was arrayed as accused in Cr.No.30 of 2007 of II Town CCS Police Station, Rajahmundry and after completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against him for the offences under Section 429, 379 or 411 of IPC and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.1761 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one (1) month.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.306 of 2009, before the Court of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry and the said appeal was dismissed by confirming the findings recorded by the trial Court.

5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

6. Heard Sri G.Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned counsel attached to the office of State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?”

8. Sri G.Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that both the trial Court as well appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence on record properly and erred in finding the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 420 of IPC; that both the Courts below failed to consider the fact that the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC was not at all considered to the case on hand; that there is unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., but the same was not considered by the Courts below; that the alleged mediator, who was examined as P.W.3 is the henchmen of P.W.1 and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the offence against the accused and thereby, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

9. Per contra, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned counsel attached to the office of State Public Prosecutor for the respondent, submits that no delay in lodging the F.I.R., if so, even such delay was properly explained by the prosecution because P.W.1 made searches about accused with regard to her vehicle and traced out his address, resulting such delay.

10. He further submits that in the case on hand clearly established the offence committed by the accused and there are concurrent findings of the trial Court and first Appellate Court that the accused committed offence under Section 420 of IPC and this Court is not expected to adjudicate upon the case by again re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, as the scope of the revisional Court is very limited.

11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court closely perused the material on record. The trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court convicted the accused for