ORDER : Assailing the judgment dated 11.04.2007 in C.C.No.90 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala, the petitioner/de facto complainant 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 27.12.2007. 3. The admitted facts in the present criminal revision case are that on 10.11.2001 at Ramakrishnapuram, accused No.1 married P.W.1/petitioner/Ch.Suryavahini as per Hindu Dharma Sastras and it is an arranged marriage. They were blessed with a female child on 10.12.2002. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused and the same was taken on file under Section 498(A), 323 and 506 of IPC. 4. After full pledged trial, the trial Court found the accused not guilty of the charges under Section 498(A), 323 and 506 of IPC and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. only evaluating the prima facie legality, correctness, or the propriety of the orders, findings and/or sentence of a lower court in accordance with the established rules of criminal jurisprudence. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/de facto complainant preferred the present revision. 6. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel representing for the petitioner/de facto complainant and Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused. 7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or procedure or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the judgment rendered by the trial Court in C.No.90 of 2005?” 8. No doubt, the law is settled on the point of revision that the power of revision accords a superior court, the prerogative to scrutinize and review the decisions made by a lower court at any stage of a trial and rectify errors or irregularities in conformity with the cannons of natural justice and equitable treatment among other grounds. The revisionary powers of the High Court can be sourced to section 401 of the Cr.P.C., whereunder the High Court has the discretionary power to inter alia reverse/alter a finding by a lower court; order a retrial; suspend the execution of a lower court’s order; issue a warrant of arrest and direct the recording of additional evidence. The revisionary powers of the High Court can be sourced to section 401 of the Cr.P.C., whereunder the High Court has the discretionary power to inter alia reverse/alter a finding by a lower court; order a retrial; suspend the execution of a lower court’s order; issue a warrant of arrest and direct the recording of additional evidence. However, a revision Court, therefore, has a limited mandate of only evaluating the prima facie legality, correctness, or the propriety of the orders, findings and/or sentence of a lower court in accordance with the established rules of criminal jurisprudence. 9. It is also settled proposition that such jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a routine manner by the higher courts and can be only invoked in specific instances wherein the decisions under challenge are inter-alia grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 10. For which, this Court fortified by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 as well Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, 2022 SCC Online SC 453. 11. Even in another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Joseph Stephen v. Santhanaswamy, (2022) 13 SCC 115, held at paragraph Nos.10 and 12 as follows: “10. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and on a plain reading of subsection (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., it has to be held that sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Though and as observed hereinabove, the High Court has revisional power to examine whether there is manifest error of law or procedure etc., however, after giving its own findings on the findings recorded by the court acquitting the accused and after setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the matter to the trial Court and/or the first appellate Court, as the case may be. 12. 12. Therefore, in the present case, the High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the order of acquittal and reversing and/or converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and consequently convicted the accused, while exercising the powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C. The order of conviction by the High Court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C., is therefore unsustainable, beyond the scope and ambit of Section 401 Cr.P.C., more particularly sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. Issue no.1 is answered accordingly.” 12. From the above, it is clear that Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C. Prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The High Court has revisional power to examine whether there is manifest error lf law or procedure, etc. However, after giving its own findings on the findings recorded by the Court acquitting the accused and after setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the matter to the trial Court and/or the first appellate Court, as the case may be. 13. In the present case on hand, now, this Court has to decide whether there is any such manifest error of law or procedure or excess use of discretion by the Court below in acquitting the accused. 14. It is stated by the de facto complainant/petitioner in her complaint as well in the evidence that before the marriage on the demand, the parents of the petitioner took four demands drafts worth of Rs.30,000/- each in favour of parents of accused No.1; that soon after the marriage, she joined with accused No.1 at the matrimonial home and lived happily for a period of three (3) months; that in the meantime, she conceived and later accused Nos.2 and 3 started demanding for additional dowry on the pretext of Srimantham and that after receipt of additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- by the parents of accused No.1, all the accused attended the naming ceremony of the female child. 15. 15. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.12.2004, there was an incident happened that all the accused came to Chirala, made a galata for additional dowry, abused in filthy language, beat the complainant and her parents also and then accused Nos.2 and 3 proclaimed that they will arrange second marriage to accused No.1, unless they meet the additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and she was not allowed to join accused No.1. 16. Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant, P.W.2 is father of P.W.1, P.Ws.3 and 4 are mediators, P.Ws.5 and 6 are neighbours of the matrimonial home at Chintalapudi and P.W.7 is A.S.I of Police. 17. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D.1 to D.15 are marked during the cross examination of prosecution witnesses. Exs.D.1 and D.2 are none other than the relevant portions of Ex.P.1, Ex.D.3 is certified copy of letter addressed to parents of P.W.1 by accused No.1, Ex.D.4 is acknowledgment given by P.W.2, Ex.D.5 is certified copy of letter addressed to P.W.1 by accused Nos.2 and 3, Ex.D.6 is certified copy of letter, Ex.D.7 is acknowledgment, Ex.D.8 is certified copy of letter addressed to P.W.1 by accused No.1, Ex.D.9 is acknowledgement, Ex.D.10 is certified copy of letter addressed to P.W.1 by parents of accused No.1, Ex.D.11 is acknowledgment, Ex.D.12 is certified copy of notice in O.P., Ex.D.13 is relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, Ex.D.14 is letter addressed to P.W.1 by accused Nos.2 and 3 and Ex.D.15 is certified copy of deposition of P.W.1 in maintenance case. 18. In all, what is made before the trial Court is that on 10.12.2004, accused came to the house of parents of P.W.1, picked up quarrel with her, abused them in filthy language, beat her and her parents also and threatened her that if they will not meet their demand, they will perform second marriage to accused No.1. On which, she filed Ex.P.1 compliant. 19. It is found from the testimony of P.W.1 that one month after marriage accused No.1 used to come to house by consuming alcohol and harassed her by demanding additional dowry. On which, she filed Ex.P.1 compliant. 19. It is found from the testimony of P.W.1 that one month after marriage accused No.1 used to come to house by consuming alcohol and harassed her by demanding additional dowry. It is also found from her testimony that she blessed with a female child in hospital at Jandrapet and the same was informed to the accused also, even at that time they demanded for additional dowry. 20. However, it is elicited during the cross examination that P.W.1 lived with accused No.1 together for fifty-five (55) days in all in matrimonial house and that from the date, accused No.1 was tested H.I.V. positive, P.W.1 was not sent to accused No.1’s house by her parents. When such is the evidence of P.W.1 that since accused No.1 was tested H.I.V. positive, her parents refused to send her to the matrimonial house, their complaint that accused demanded additional dowry to take her for matrimonial life is all false. 21. It is also elicited from the evidence of P.W.4 that P.W.1 informed to him that accused were harassed P.W.1 for about three (3) months soon after marriage, thereafter, P.W.1 delivered a female baby. Five (5) or six (6) months thereafter, himself and P.W.3 went to the house of accused for mediation. Then accused demanded Rs.50,000/- for restitution of conjugal life. When P.W.1 herself deposed that accused No.1 was tested H.I.V. positive, P.Ws.3 and 4 visited the house of accused for mediation to restitute the conjugal life and at that time they demanded Rs.50,000/- is not a believable story. Likewise, accused Nos.2 and 3 threatened that they would perform second marriage to accused No.1 is also a highly doubtful circumstance. 22. Admittedly, P.Ws.5 and 6, who are neighbours, did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. 23. P.W.7, who is the investigating officer in his evidence deposed that P.W.1 did not state before him that accused No.1 started beating P.W.1 immediately after one (1) month of the marriage. Apart from, on perusal of the complaint, P.W.1 did not state that accused No.1 come to the house by consuming alcohol and used to beat her indiscriminately. Even the entire prosecution case is only that some incident was happened on 10.12.2004. But, nothing on record to make believe that such incident was happened on that day. 24. Apart from, on perusal of the complaint, P.W.1 did not state that accused No.1 come to the house by consuming alcohol and used to beat her indiscriminately. Even the entire prosecution case is only that some incident was happened on 10.12.2004. But, nothing on record to make believe that such incident was happened on that day. 24. When P.W.1 and her parents known about that accused No.1 was tested H.I.V. positive, P.Ws.3 and 4 visited the house of accused and made mediation and then they picked up quarrel and threatened them are not believable and such facts are not even proved. 25. One more interesting aspect, which found from the record, is that P.W.1 delivered female child in the year, 2002 in a hospital and she came to know through the doctor that accused No.1 was infected with H.I.V. positive in the year, 2001 itself. If that is true, it may not be possible for P.W.1 to go to matrimonial home to lead conjugal life with him and as per the admission of P.W.2, since 2001, she has been residing in parental house. 26. When the incident happened in the year, 2001, at the time of birth of female child, they came to know that accused No.1 was tested H.I.V. positive, waited till 2005 and gave a complaint gives any amount of doubt in the prosecution version. As stated supra, P.Ws.5 and 6, who are neighbours to the accused, did not support the case of the prosecution nor supported the version of P.W.1 and they turned hostile. 27. On perusal of testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4, there is no whisper about any specific dates or incident regarding alleged harassment nor any mediation. When such is the case, P.Ws.3 and 4 went for mediation make an attempt for restitution of conjugal life is not at all believable and their testimony is not trustworthy nor cogent nor convincing. Admittedly, since 2001, P.W.1 was residing separately and till 2005 no report was given by P.W.1 to police. 28. In the circumstances, there was a demand of additional dowry by the accused is all false. Whereas, even during the matrimonial life, whether there is cordial relationship or not is concerned, there is no convincing evidence from P.Ws.1 to 4 that there was harassment meted out by P.W.1 in the hands of accused No.1. 28. In the circumstances, there was a demand of additional dowry by the accused is all false. Whereas, even during the matrimonial life, whether there is cordial relationship or not is concerned, there is no convincing evidence from P.Ws.1 to 4 that there was harassment meted out by P.W.1 in the hands of accused No.1. Evaluating the above all facts, the trial Court rightly came to conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against them. 29. Even this Court, on perusal of the evidence on record, nothing found to make believe that P.W.1 meted out harassment in the hands of accused. Admittedly, there is no corroboration and there are discrepancies in the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4. 30. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no manifest error of law or procedure or misunderstanding of evidence rather miscarriage of justice in the judgment of the trial Court. Even if the petitioner/de facto complainant is able to establish there is any manifest error in the judgment of the trial Court, this Court ought to have come to conclusion that it went wrong in acquitting the accused, but whereas, the above discussion clearly goes to show that there is no material to find guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against them. 31. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court does not find any such perversity or manifest error of law or miscarriage of justice to interfere with the well-articulated judgment of the Court below and there are no merits in this revision. Thereby, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 32. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 11.04.2007 in C.C.No.90 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.