Court No. - 75
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4146 of 2003 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Bhagat Singh Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.
The present appeal has been filed along with leave to appeal application against the impugned judgement and order dated 14.5.2003 passed by Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Bareilly in Special Case No. 3 of 2000 under Section 7/13 (1) (D) (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur whereby accused-respondent was acquitted.
Submission of learned A.G.A. is that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mandatory provisions provided under Act have been followed. Court concerned did not apply judicial mind while passing the impugned judgment and order. Findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgement and order are perverse. Thus prayer is made to grant leave to appeal.
I have considered the submissions.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, vide impugned judgment and order, Trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that P.W.3 Chhatra Pal and P.W.4 Jag Mohan Lal, who were independent witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case. P.W.1 P.K. Tiwari was the trap inspector and P.W.2 Surya Prakash was the complainant, but these witnesses were interested witnesses and their testimony did not corroborate by any independent witness. It has also been observed that one F.I.R. had already been lodged before initiation of this proceeding by the accused against the complainant and due to that reason, in collusion with P.W.1, present prosecution has been started. Trial Court was also of the view that trial proceedings have also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and are not supported by any independent witness. If the findings recorded by the trial court are minutely analysed with the facts and evidence in consonance with submission raised by learned A.G.A., no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in the impugned judgement and order. The findings are based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, view taken by the trial court is also a possible view.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju Versus State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 SCC 315 has held as under:
"It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e if the conclusions arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence."
In the case of Gangabhavani Versus Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, (2013) 15 SCC 298, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"This Court has persistently emphasised that there are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
Thus, the application moved by the appellant State of U.P. to grant leave to appeal for the reasons discussed here-in-above is not liable to be allowed and same is refused.
Since the application for grant of leave to appeal has been refused, the appeal is also not liable to be admitted and is dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 ss