State of Haryana vs Som Nath

Sabina, J.—Respondent had faced trial in F.I.R. No. 3 dated 2.3.2010 registered at police Station SVB, Ambala under Sections 7, 8,

13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Trial Court vide judgment dated 8.11.2012 ordered the acquittal of respondent of the charge

framed against him. Hence, the application u/s 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) has been filed by the State

with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 8.11.2012. Prosecution story, in brief, was that on 29.1.2010,

complainant Ram Kishan Sharma had applied for a licence for sale of fertilizer and had deposited the requisite fee. Respondent, who was working

as a steno, had taken Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant for doing the needful. When the complainant again visited the office of the respondent on

23.2.2010, he had raised a demand of Rs. 10,000/- more for doing the needful. Complainant approached the office of vigilance bureau. A raid

was organised and respondent was caught red handed, while accepting bribe.

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the respondent.

Trial Court, while ordering the acquittal of the respondent of the charge framed against him, has held that as per record, licence had been

prepared on 23.2.2010 and was sent to PW-3 Geeta Rani-clerk on 25.2.2010 for despatch. Thus, after 23.2.2010, respondent had no concern

with regard to preparation of the licence at any stage. Although, in the present case appellant was allegedly caught red handed, while accepting

bribe in a raid organised by the vigilance bureau on 23.2.2010 but on the day of raid, respondent had no occasion to demand or accept bribe as

the licence in question had been prepared on 23.2.2010. Trial Court further held that the respondent was not having any concern with the

preparation of licence in any manner as he was not to deal with the preparation of licence. So far as shadow witness is concerned, he had not

heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused. In these circumstances, the reasons given by the trial Court, while ordering the

acquittal of the respondent, are sound reasons.

Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one

which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.

A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Hansa Singh , while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:

We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar

Vs. State of Rajasthan, , which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were

perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a

reason calling for interference.

To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran and Another, and in Chandrappa and

Others Vs. State of Karnataka,

Similarly, in Mrinal Das and Others Vs. The State of Tripura, , the Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down

parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its

extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to

re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or

condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for

presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is

presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on

record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the

evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived

at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the

appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An

order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are ""compelling and substantial reasons"", for doing so. If the order is ""clearly

unreasonable"", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has

ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial

Court depending on the materials placed.

Hence, no ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.