C It Mrinal Das v. State oJ Mpural the Apex Court held as under

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Vishal Gandhi representing Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy (Standing Counsel for ACB Special PP) Counsel for the Re pondent: Ms.. M Bhagyasri, Legal Aid i The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT / THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL ()RIMINAL APPEAL No.317 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: This Crim na1 Appeal is hled by the appellant/complainant challenging the . udgment dated 25.09.2OI3, passed by the learned First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short, 'the trial CourtJ in C.C.No. 15 of 2OlO, whereby the iearned Judge found the accused not guilty for the offences under Sectior-rs 7 and 13(1Xd) r/w Section 13(2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the 'P.C. Act, 19t8).

2. For the sal<e of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as arrayed in C.C.

3. The brief fe cts of the case of the prosecution are ls follo*s: The accused ',r,ar working as the Inspector of Survey in the ofhce of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District. On 13.02.2009 t}ire de facto cortplainant (PW. 1) submitted an application tr> PW.9, the then Tahsildar, Kandukuru Mandal of Ranga Reddy Dis trict seeking to survey Acs.5.20 guntas of land out of Acs. 14.30 gunta s of land in Sy.No.261 of Pulimamidi village of Kandukuru Mar dal in Ranga Reddy District in view of the civil disputes. On thr: strength of Ex.P23 report submitted by the Mandal 2 'I Surveyor of Kandukuru Mandal that the survey in respect of the said land was previously taken up by the Inspector, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, addressed a letter to the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District seeking to conduct the survey of land of PW. 1 by the Inspector of Survey attached to that ofhce. PW.7, the then Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records entrusted the work to the accused, being the then Inspector of Survey in of the ofhce of the Assistant Director and after issuing notices to all the parties concerned on 06.O6.2009 seeking their presence at the time of survey fixed on 13.06.20O9. The accused conducted the survey of the land of PW.1 in Sy.No.261 on 13.O6.20O9 and submitted Ex.P20 report along with Ex.P21 panchanama to PW.7.

4. On 18.06.2O09 PW. 1 applied for the certified copies of the panchanama conducted by the accused and the tonch map by paying the requisite fee. When PW. 1 approached the accused on 18.06'20O9, t}le accused demanded for payment of a bribe of Rs.7,000/- for issuing the certified copies of the panchanama and tonch map and on that PW. 1 expressed his inability to comply with. Ot OL.O7.2OO9 when PW. 1 enquired at the ofhce of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, he came to know that the accused did not submit the panchanama and tonch map and due to that the certihed copies sought for by PW.l were not issued. When 1 PW. 1 approached the accused on that day, the accused again renewed his demand for ,he payment of the bribe of Rs.S,OOO/- to do the ofhcial favour to tW. 1 and also further made it clear that he would not submit the panc hanama and tonch map till his demand for the payment of the bribe was met with. PW. 1 was relur:tant to pay the bribe amount denranded by the accused and hence, PW. I approached the Joint Director, ACB, Hyderabad on 01.07 .2OO9 at about 1 1:O0 A.M. and submit.ed Ex.P4 report to him against the accused. The said Joint Director, ACB, entrusted Ex.P4 to PW. i4, the then DSP, ACB, CIU, Hydelabad for making necessary enquiry and to take further action. A lter having gone through the contents of Ex.P4 and making necessar/ enquiries with PW. 1 about his report, PW. 14 durected PW. 1 to come gain to his ofhce on O2.O7.2OO9 at about 5:OO P.M. along with tlre proposed bribe of Rs.5,000/-. Dr.rring the course of trap, the trap I aying ofhcer along with PW. 1 went to'the office the accused, PW. 1 enLered into the office of the accused, while the other members of the t 'ap party took vantage positions around that ofhce awaiting the pre-a rranged signal for PW. 1 . PW. 1 took out the tainted cash from his left. side T-shirt pocket and handed over the same to the accused, which tLe accused received with his left hand and kept the same in his left si 1e pant pocekt. The accused assured pW. I that he would do the work of PW.1 as early as possible. Thereafter, pW. 1 came out of the ofice of the accused and gave the pre-arranged signal 4 to the trap part5r and on seeing the same' PW' 14 and other members of the trap party rushed into the olhce of the accused and caught hold the accused and when asked by PW 14 about the bribe amount' the accused took out the tainted cash from his left side pant pocket and produced the same before the trap parly' The said currency notes were seized. After observing formalities' PW 14 arrested the accused' obtained necessary sanction to prosecute the accused and after completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused.

5. On appearance, charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the P'C' Act were framed' read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried'

6. In order to bring home the guilt ol the accused person' 1 to 15 ald marked Exs'P''l to P'29 and I prosecution examined P'Ws exhibited M.Os.1 to 9'

7. 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 to irresistible conclusions on the guilt of accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1Xd) r/w section 13(2) of the P'C' Act arraigned against him beyond reasonable doubt and' under these 5 clrcumstances, a( cused is entitled to seek a strong benefit of doubt in his favour. Henct:, accused is found not guiity for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1xd) r/w section i3(2) of the p.c. Act and accordingly, he was acquitted under Section 24g(l) ofCr.p.C. 8. Heard Sri ,/ishal Gandhi, learned counsel representing Sri T.Bala Mohan Rec.dy, learned Standing Counsel and Special public Prosecutor for AC I and Ms Bhagrasri, learned Legal Aid Counsel Perused the record. appearing for the rr:spondent.

9. Sri Vishal C andhi, learned counsel representing Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, le arned Standing Counsel and Special public Prosecutor for ACB appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the trial Court faile 1 in appreciating the evidence available on record and came to an errcneous conclusion that the appellant State has not piaced sufficient e'idence to prove the offence prli"h.bl. ,.rd.. Sections 7 and 13(1j(d) r/w section l3(2) ot the p.C. Act. Hence seeks to allow the presenr Criminal Appeal by setting aside the judgment dated 25.O9.2O13, ptLssed in C.C.No. 1S of 2O10. Srral

10. Ms. Bhagrasrj, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the tria-l Court, upon appreciating the and documen lary evidence available on record in right perspective passed tt e judgr:nerft and the interference of this Court at this stage ts unwar -anted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present 6 Criminal Appeal. In the case on hand' there is no convrncrng evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance ofthe bribe by the accused person' ll.Itiswellsettledt}ratinanappealagainstacquittal,the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such' which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Courl acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore, to be characterized as perverse' There is 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 rveb 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 his innocence' the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted' 1C It Mrinal Das Vs. State oJ Mpural the Apex Court held as under: ' (2011) 9 scc 479 / 7 'It i,s clear t.l,,at in an appeal agairrct acquittal in the absence of peruersitg in the judgment and order, interkrence bg this Court exercising tts ertraordinory jurisdiction, is not utanranted_. Howeuer, if t\e appeal is heard bg an appellate court, being the f.nal court qf fact, is fullg competent to re- qppreciate, recorsid.er and reuiettt tL e euidence and take its oun decision. In other uord_s, la u.t does nol prescribe ang limitation, restrictbn or cond_ition on exercise of st ch power and the appe ate court is free to affiue at its ou.tn conctttsiott keeping in mind that acquittal prouid.es for presumption tn fauour of the acansed. The presumption of innocence i.s uuailable to tLLe person anL in ciminal jurisprudence euery person s presumed to be innocent unless he is proued guilty bg the competent court. If tu.to reasonable uietus are possible on the basb of rc euidence on record., the appellate court should_ not disturb the Jl"r .dtngs of acquittal. There i_s no limitation. on the part of the appella e court to reuieut the euidence upon uhich the ord.er of acquittal i.; found and to come to its oun conclusion. The appellate coutt can also reuiew the conclusion aniued at bg the tial Court uttth respect to both facts ond. laut. While deating u.tith the appeal aguinst acquittal prefened. bg the State, it is the dutg of the appelLate :ourt to morshal the entire euid"ence on record. and. only bg giuir g cogent and adequate reasons set astd.e the judgment of ct.quittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered. with only wlrcn th ?re ore "compelling and. substantial reasons,, for doing so. If thz order is "clearlg unreasonable,', it is a compelling reason for interkrence. Wtrcn tLe tiat Court has ignored_ the euidence or mi;read the mateial euid.ence or Lws ignlred mateial documents lik,z dging declaration/ report of baltistic eiperts etc., the appellate ccurt is competent to reuerse the d.ecision. of the trial Court dependir .g on the moteriats placed_."

13. In Maloth Sornaraju Vs. State ol Arrdhra. pradeshz the Apex Court held that the-e can be no two opinions that merely because the acquittal is found o be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has more and serious respons ibility while dealing with the judgment of acquittal and unless the ar quittal is found to be perverse or not at all '? lzor r; a scc o:s 8 supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as to whether the trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care.

14. As the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondent/accused, in view of the Judgments referred to above and taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am of the view that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed conhrming the judgment dated 25.09.2O 13, pabsed by the learned First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, Ciry Civii Courts, Hyderabad in C.C.No. 15 of 2OlO. r Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lst Additional special Judge for sPE and ACB cases-Cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri T Bala Mohan Reddy(SC FOR ACB SPL PP TS) IOPUC] 3. One CC to Ms. M. Bhagyasri, Legal Aid IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies VH/PSI- w .r'':.,.'],.;,\. o',\f_r 2O sEP M :. .i ': '... ..,"-^ -... [ -. 1:: ,./ HIGH COURT DATED: 01108|2025 a JUDGMENT CRLA.No.317 <r12014 DISMISSING T}IE APPEAL G #"I W Grda5