Court No. - 75
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3561 of 2003 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Pran Nath Arora Counsel for Appellant :- Jagdish Tiwari,AGA Counsel for Respondent :- Ajai Srivastava,Arun Srivastava
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
List revised. None present for the accused-respondents even in the revised call.
Heard learned A.G.A and perused the trial court's record.
This government appeal has been preferred along with leave to appeal application against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2003 passed by Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Meerut acquitting the accused- respondent in C.C. No.3 of 1994 (State Vs. Pran Nath Arora) under Section 7/13 (1) (D) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut.
It is argued by learned A.G.A. that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have clearly supported the prosecution case. 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-respondent. 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, a trap was made on the complaint made by the complainant (P.W.1) and accused was arrested along with certain amount said to have been demanded by him to clear the bills of the contractor. Trap was made in the house of the accused. Charge- sheet was submitted after fulfilling entire formalities and accused was prosecuted. Prosecution examined the witnesses in support of its case. Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was also recorded. It appears that after hearing the parties, Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order acquitted the accused-respondent for the charge under Section 7/13 (1) (D) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order was of the view that the mode and manner of trapping have not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Entire prosecution story appears to be improbable and unbelievable. It was also observed that if the complainant was agreed to pay the demanded money in hotel, then there was no occasion to receive the illegal gratification in the house of the accused. It was further observed that there was enmity between the complainant and accused-respondent, who had made complaint against the complainant to the Superior Authority to stop the payment of bills raised by him and owing to that reason, present prosecution was started planting the trap amount. Trial Court was also of the view that before giving direction for trap, concerned Authority did not ensure the genuineness of the complaint. Prosecution case was also not supported by any independent evidence. Thus, on the aforesaid ground, entire prosecution case was found suspicious by the Trial Court. If the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are minutely analyzed with the evidence available in the lower court record and in consonance with the submission advanced by the learned AG.A., no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned judgment and order. Entire prosecution case appears to be suspicious. Enmity between the parties is admitted. Prosecution case is not supported by any independent evidence. If such is the position, the findings recorded by the Trial Court 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 :- 26.4.2019 ss