In Mrinal Das v. State of Tripurat the Apex Court held as under 'It is cleu

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy (SC FOR ACB SPL PP) Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri A. Viswanath Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri Koka Srinivas Kumar The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VEI{ITIGOPAL CRIMINAI APPEAL No.56 OF 2011: JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appelle rt/complainant challenging the judgment dated O8.08.2O11, passed try the learned II Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases :rt Hyderabad (for short, the trial Court') in C.C.No.14 of 2010, wtre r, by the learned Judge found the accused persons not guilty for tl-e offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of t tr, prevention of Corruption Act, I 988 (for short, the 'P.C. Act, l98Bl.

2. The appellant herein is the complainant and rcspondents herein are accused Nos.l and 2 before the trial Court. l.or the sake of convenience, hereinafter parties are referred to as t lre complaihant and accused Nos. I and 2.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are rs follows: AO.1 worked as Divisiona-l Accounts Officer in the Crtt'ce of Executive Engineer, Divisional-ll CCH (SRSP) Chintagattu, V/z rangal District. AO.2 worked as Senior Assistant in the same ofil<:e The d.e facto complainant U.Srinivas, owner of the jeep bearing No A,po-7347 hired his jeep to the Deputy Executive Engineer during the ., ear 2002 at the rate of Rs.10,0O0/- per month. He received hire, c rarges through 2 ,: ,, cheque abolrt four to five times. During the year i.e., from O9.O4.2OO3 to 31.12.2003 he hired his jeep at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month, and entered into an agreement with the department to that effect. Deputy Executive Engineer demanded thre de facto complainant to pay enhance amount of Rs.2,OOO/- as bribe for payment of hire charges' LW. 1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe. The Deputy Executive Engineer utilized his vehicle till June, 2003. While so, on 01.1O.2003 when the de facto complainant met the concerned D.A.O (AO.1) and Senior Assistant (AO.2) and requested for preparing his vehicle hire charge bill and for payment of his dues, AO.1 is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.1,OOO/- and AO.2 is said to have dernanded Rs.5O0/- respectively in consideration of oflicial favour in preparation of the vehicle hire charges bill. The de facto complainant expressed his inability to pay such huge amount as bribe AO. 1 is directed him to pay Rs.SOO/- through AO.2 for passing the bill. As the de facto complainant was not willing the to pay the said bribe amount, lodged a complaint to the Inspector, ACB, Warangal for necessary action, who after verification of antecedents of the de facto contplainant ald altecedents ofAOs, registered a case under Section 7 of the P C' Act, 1988 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, mediators were secured and trap was organized on l2.lL.2OO3' The d-e facto complainant gave Rs. 500/- as bribe to AO.1, AO.1 received ,// ,// 3 the same with his right hand and kept in his tal, k, drawer. After receiving the tainted amount, AO.1 recommended the irle for payment of hire charges and instructed AO.2 to transmit thr: lile to Executive Engineer. Then AO.2 and de facto complainant u,t:rL[ to the seat of AO.2 and AO.2, upon his demanded, t]ne de facto clmplainant was paid Rs.5O0/- as bribe and AO.2 returned back Rs.2{)O/ - to d_e facto complainant. Then, on the pre-arranged signal gir.en by the d_e facto complainant, and trap Iaying ofhcer along with the :r-l :diators rushed to the spot and caught AO.1 and AO.2. The taintt:d currency notes were recovered from Ao.1 and AO.2. The chemrcal tr.srs conducted on both hand hngers of AO.1 and AO.2 proved positiut, and the inner portion of their pant pockets were also proved positire. Thereafter, the trap laying ofhcer effected the arrest of both .A l). 1 and AO.2 on

12.ll.2OO3 and sent them for judicial custody.

4. On appearance, charges under Sections 7 ,,u.d 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the P.C. Act were framed, read over- a-rd explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and cl;rirrLed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the zrc,:used persons, prosecution examined P.Ws.l to 9 and marked Exs;.J:,. 1 to p. 17 and exhibited M.Os. 1 to 16. I

6. After hearing the parties on both sides and upon considering the evidence on record, the trial Court opined that the prosecution has miserably failed in placing cogent, convincing, reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence so as to drive the Court to come lo irresistible conclusions on the guilt of accused for the offences under Sections 7 and l3(1)(d), r/w Section l3(2) of the Act arraigned against them beyond reasonable doubt and under these circumstances, accused are entitled to seek a strong benelit of doubt in their favour. Hence, accused are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), r/w Section 13(2) of the Act and accordingly, they were acquitted under Section 248(l) of Cr.p.C for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.

7. Heard Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. B. Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the trial Court failed in appreciating the evidence available on record and came to an erroneous conclusion that the appellant-State has not placed sufficient evidence to prove the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(t)(d), r/w Section 13(2) of the ':i$f' ,/ ,,','t ta' 5 Act. Hence seeks to allow the present Criminal lLlr peal by setting aside the judgment dated 08.08.20 i 1 passed in C.C.i'Io.14 of 2010.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the responden,s would contend that the trial Court, upon appreciating the oral eLr 1 documentary ewidence available on record in right perspective passcd the judgment and the interference of this Court at this stage is; unwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present Criminal Appeal- [n the case on hand, there is no convincing evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused persons-

10. Learned counsel further submitted that pending proceedings before this Court, respondent No.2/accused No.2 has died and therefore, the proceedings against him shall stand abated.

11. It is well settled that in an appeal againsl. acquittal, the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach nrade by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated try some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, u'hich could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court actinlJ reasonably and judiciously and is therefore, to be characterized as llerverse. There is 6 '1..jj no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to their innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

12. In Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripurat the Apex Court held as 'It is cleu *at in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of peruersitg in the judgment and order, interference bg this Courl exercising its ertraordinary jurisdiction, is not uatanted, Houeuer, if the appeal is heard bg an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fullg competent to re- appreciate, reconsider and reuiew the euidence and take its own decision. In other uords, lau.t does not prescr[be ang limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such pouer and the appellate court is free to aniue at its outn conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal prouides for presumption in fauour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is ouailable to the person and in ciminal jurisprudence euery person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proued guiltg bg the competent court. If ttuo reasonable uieuts are possible on the basis of the euidence on record, the appellate court should nat disturb the fndings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to reuieut the eudence upon uthich ttrc order of acquittal is found and to come to its oun conclusion. The appellate court can also reuieuL the conclusion arriued at by tlrc 1 lzot ty e scc +zl 7 tial Court u.tith respect to both facts and latu. Whitc d.ealing uith the appeal ogainst acquittal prefefted bg the State, it s the_ d_utg of the appellate court to marshal the entire eui.d.ena, ott record and onlg bg gtuing cogent and adeElate reasons .s, t asid_e the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to bt, irterfered. uith onlg uhen there are "compelling and. substanti(. I reasons,, for doing so. IJ the order is "clearlg unreasonable,', it ,.s a compelling reason for interference. When the tnat Couft lt,L:, ignored. the euidence or misread the material euidence or hr.s r,,nttrecl mateial docnments like dging declaration/ report of ballist,c experts etc., the appellate court [s competent to reuerse the rleci..i, n of the tiat Court deperLding on the materiols placed. "

13. In Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of And.hra p,"od.esh2 the Apex court held that lhere can be no two opinions that merrely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view ci,lrr be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellat:: lourt has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the judllrrLent of acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverr;r, or not at all supportable and where the appellate Court comes t<, the conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal ( lnnot be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as to whethr:.: ,he trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care.

14. As the prosecution failed to establish tl-rc guilt of the respondents/accused Nos. I and 2, in view of the JL.Ld lments referred to above and taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am of '1zor ry s scc o:s I t 8 the view that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. As stated by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, that accused No.2 is not more, the proceedings against respondent No.2/accused No.2 stands abated.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment

08.08.2011, passed by the learned II Additional Special Judge for SpE and ACB cases at Hyderabad in C.C.No. 14 of 2OlO. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- A. PRATHIMA DEPUW REGI STRAR s CTION OFFICER To, I '1. The ll Additionat Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri T Bata Mohan Reddy (SC FOR ACB SpL pp) tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri Koka Srinivas Kumar, Advocate [OpUC] 4. One CC to Sri A. Viswanath, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies VH/gh I I c I.q 2 :] ,,tP '; -, \. . a,, .i\ HIGH COURT DATED: 0210712025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.56 of 2012 DISMISSING THE APPEAL \