Court No. - 75
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3082 of 2003 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Hakimuddin And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Government Advocate
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
This government appeal has been preferred along with leave to appeal application against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.3.2003 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act) / U.P. Gangster Act, Meerut acquitting the accused-respondents in Special Case No.61 of 1993 (State Vs. Hakimuddin and others) under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Lisadi Gate, District Meerut.
It is argued by learned A.G.A. that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order are perverse and illegal. The trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and reached on a wrong and erroneous conclusion acquitting the accused-respondents by passing an illegal and unjustified impugned order. There was sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused-respondents. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court is erroneous, illegal and perverse. Hence, prayer has been made to grant leave to appeal and to allow the appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
I have considered the submissions raised by learned A.G.A.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, respondents were facing trial for the offence under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order was of the view that prosecution has failed to establish this fact that respondents were creating terror and fear in public. No cogent evidence was also adduced by the prosecution to convict the respondents for the offence under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. If the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are compared with the submission advanced by the learned A.G.A., no illegality or infirmity is found in the matter. Prosecution was not able to prove the fact that respondents were convicted in the cases shown in the gang chart. All the cases shown in the gang chart were still pending. If such was the position, the finding recorded by the Trial Court cannot be termed to be illegal and the same are based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju Versus State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 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 Supreme Court Cases 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 to grant leave to appeal for the reason discussed here-in-above is not liable to be allowed and same is rejected.
Since the application for grant of leave to appeal is rejected, the appeal is also not liable to be admitted and same is dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 ss