In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State

Counsel for the Respondents: _ _ _ _ The Court made the following: ORDER / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE J. SREEN]VI.S RAO (ll{IMINAL APPEAL No.724 OF 20r2 ORDER: This Crinrinal Appeal has been filed by the State, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the leamed VI Additional Chie Metropolitan Magistrate, 1{lderabad, dated 18.11.2010, in C.C.No.29 of 2004, whereunder r espondents/ accused Nos.l to 3 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 47 | and 420 rlw I 20-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. The ciLse of prosecution in brief is that accused lrtro.l, proprietor of Surana's l{awath Super Market, Secunderabad, appli:d for a loan of Rs.25,00.00t)/- at the State Bank of Hyderabad, Bollaram Branch, with the help o1' accused No.3-the Branch Manager, arLd submifted a labricated iirevocable General Power of Attomey (GPA) for land in Sy.No. l 8 o LA.hmedguda Village, falsely claiming or.rnership, though the property belongs to Javvadi Balaiah and later Jirwadi Yadaiah, who were illiterates and Jawadi Yadaiah died be1bre the alleged execution ol the GPA, leading to the registration of the present criminal case. 2

3. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that respondent No.l/accused No.l, Anit Kumar Surana, filed a memo as a party-in- person on 15.02.2024, vide U.S.R. No.15986 of 2024, stating that respondent No.2/accused No.2, S.Ashok Kumar Surana, had passed away on 13.03.2022. A copy of the death certiircate was enclosed along with the memo. In view of the same, the appeal stands abated against Respondent No.2/Accused No.2. It is further stated in the memo that he is suffering from kidney and prostate problems. The record further reveals that respondent No.l has not engaged any counsel to represent him in the matter.

4. Heard Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor lor the appellant.

5. There is no representation on behalfofthe respondent Nos.l and 3/accused Nos.l and 3 either in physical mode or virtual mode.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court, without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, erroneously passed the impugned ju$ment, despite the fact that the respondents/accused had committed the offences. He further submitted that merely the 3 prosecution hrrs not taken steps to send the disputed documents to handwriting e <pert for verification, the trial Court oughl to have sent the signatures of the accused for comparison which were very much available on r,:cord.

7. Leamerl Assistant Public Prosecutor further s,:bmitted that accused No.2 availed the loan by using forged and fabricated documents. narnely Exs.P18 and Pl9. However, the trial Court relied on the evide rce of PW-5 and PW-9, who had give6 s legal opinion stating that tire documents marked as Exs.Pl8 and Pl9 were valid for the purpose o1'obtaining a loan, passed the impugned judgment. He further subnritted that PWs.5 and 9 only recommendr:d the bank to sanction the l,ran based on the documents submittr:d ty the accused and the prr,secution discharged their burden by proving the case against the respondents/accused. However, the trial Court without considering the same, acquitted the respondents/accused and passed impugned jrrdgment and the same is contrary to law :rnd the same is liable to be set aside and the respondents/accused are liable for punishment for the alleged offences. 4

8. Having considered the submissions made by the leaned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that, based on the complaint lodged by PW.l, Crime No.75 of 1997 was registered against the respondents. After conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet before the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which took cognizance of the matter and numbered the case as C.C. No.29 of 2004. The record further discloses that, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs. I to 26 witnesses were examined, and Exs.Pl to P67 documents were marked. On behalf of the respondents/accused, Exs.D I and D2 were marked.

9. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment acquitting the respondents/accused. The core contentions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor are that respondent No.l/accused No.l fabricated documents, namely Exs. P18 and Pl9, and availed a loan, which was sanctioned in favour of respondent No.2/accused No.2, in collusion with respondent No.3/accused No.3, are concemed at the instance of the bank, PW.5 g1\6n a iegal opinion through Ex.P2l, wherein it was / 5 specifically slated that Ex.Pl8-original agreement ol' sale dated

08.01.1998 ard Ex.Pl9-the irrevocable General Porver of Attorney dated 26.07.1()94 are valid documents. The said opinion was further referred to an )ther panel advocate, who had also given legal opinion through Ex.P?,2 that Exs.Pl8 and 19 are valid docurnen:s. Hence, the contentions c f the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that merely because PWs 5 and 9 opined that Ex.P I 8 and P l9 are valid documents for obtaining a loan cannot, by themselves, be treated as conclusive evidence by thc trial Court is not tenable under law

10. It is pe rtinent to mention that the role of the advo,:ates is limited for examining the validity of the documents presented before them and giving a legal opinion and the ultimate decision rvhether a party is entitled for ;anction of a loan rests with the competent authorities of the bank oniy. The record further reveals that during the pendency of C.C.No.29 of 2004, accused No.4 passed away, and accordingly, the case agains,. him was treated as abated. During the prendsnsy .1 th. present appeal, respondent No.2/accused No.2 also peLssed away, and the appeal against him was dismissed as abated. i i I I i i l I I 6

11. The trial Court rightly held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents/accused and also the prosecution has not taken any steps to send the documents, Exs.Pl8 and Pl9, to a handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures of Mr. Jawadi Balaiah and Jawadi Yadaiah, particularly when they are alive

12. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and anothert , held that while dealing with an appeal against acquitaal, the appellant Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

13. It is also relevant to mention that in Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradeshz the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of ' 120221 8 Supreme tourt cases 536 ? ' 12ooa1 lo srpreme Court Cases 45 7 appellate C'ourt in reversing the order of acquiftal, held at para 70, as follows: "70 In the light of the above, the High Court anatother appellare Courts should follow the well-settled pritrciples crystalltzed by number of Judgments if it is going to overrie or otherwise disturb the trial court's acq ittal: .' . [he appellate court may only overrule or olheruise disturb the trial court's acquittal if tt has "very substantial and corqelling reasons " for doing so. A number of instances arise tn which the appel,'ate court v,ottld have "very substantial and compelling r(,asons " to disctrd the trial court's decision. "Yery substantial and compelling reasotts " exist when: i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong: ii, The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result i " grave mis ca rri age ofjus tice " ; iv) Ihe entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vt) The trial court has ignored the evidence or mi;;read the material evidence or has ignored material documents like d.ying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc vii) fhis list is tntended to be illustrative, not exhcusive. \ I I I 8

2. The appellate court must always give proper weighl and consideration o the findings of the trial court. j. If nvo reasonable views can be reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to convictton the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. "

14. The learned Magistrate, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record and hearing both parties, passed the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2010, by giving cogent findings. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the said hndings given by the leamed Magistrate.

15. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the State fails and is hereby dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed, SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL PUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFF]CER To, 1-TheVlAdditionalCh.efMetropolitanMagistrate,Hyderabad ; iii" ;i;il i; g"::"',?Jl -T^1":11:'iii'tate or reransana at 3. Two CCs to Public Prost HYderabad [OUT] N: '*' cD coPies I ABK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 2810812025 ORDER CRLA.No.724 ol 2012 '{ s A 15 \i !) ( ( ,:) ll! I T 52 2025

6. * Or r,1gitCl -----:-:;/- DISMISSING THE'lttlA 5 q