O R D E R:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 18.09.2009 in Crl.A.No.308 of 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.2008 passed in C.C.No.1251 of 2004 by the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to pay fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.

02. Heard Sri K Sai Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent and perused the record.

03. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is running a shop in the premises of Narsing Temple Trust Building, Opp: Clock Tower Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad since long ago. In this regard, 15 years back he did not pay the rent to the trust management, for which a case in Rent Control Court has been filed and the same is pending. On the intervening night of 31/01.06.2004 the accused had broken the wall which is situated in between the house of accused and the way of LWs1 and 2 and criminal trespassed into the way of LWs1 and 2 and further he has intentionally damaged wooden door and stair case property worth of Rs.15,000/-. On knowing the same, LW1 questioned the accused, the accused threatened him with dire consequences to kill him.

04. Basing on the complaint given by PW1, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.142 of 2004 for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

The trial Court has taken the same on file and numbered as C.C.No.1251 of 2004.

05. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 and no defence evidence has been adduced by the accused. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court has found the accused guilty for the offences under Section 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as stated above.

06. Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.2008 passed in C.C.No.1251 of 2004 by the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the accused has preferred an Appeal before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed vide Judgment dated 18.09.2009 in Crl.A.No.308 of 2008.

07. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner /

accused has preferred this Criminal Revision Case on the following grounds:

i. Both the Courts have not considered the evidence in proper prospective and recorded the finding in mechanical way.

ii. Both the Courts failed to consider the fact that there is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

iii. Both the Courts failed to consider that the fact that PW1 to PW6 are interested witnesses and inimical to the prosecution case.

08. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Judgment dated 18.09.2009 in Crl.A.No.308 of 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is liable to be set side ? P O I N T:

09. The powers of the Revisional Court in interfering with the Judgments of the trial Court as well as Lower Appellant Court more particularly, in case where there is a concurrent finding recorded by the trial Court and also the Lower Appellate Court are very limited. Unless it is shown to this Court that there is a misapplication of law, or procedure, on account of which gross injustice was done, the Revisional Courts are not normally expected to interfere and reassess the evidence as if the Appellate Court.

10. The trial Court