The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1148 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: The present criminal appeal is filed by the complainant aggrieved by the acquittal findings recorded in CC No.72 of 2006 dated

06. L 1.2009 by the learned Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ilyderabad.

2. Heard Sri tr.Ganesh, Icarned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appcllant/ complainant/ State and Sri Parsa Ananta Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel for the responden[/ accused.

3. CC No.72 of 2OO5 is a case regislered against the respondent herein for the offcnces under Sections 406, 42O and 24 of IPC read with Sections 1O and 16 o[ Emigration Act. 'lhe allegation is that the accused/ respondent herein having contacts rvith travel agents and VISA consultanls in Chennai, Mumbai and Delhi started M/s.MNR International Plzrccment Consultants and M/s.MSR Educational Consultants during the year 1999 and attracted and lured the innocent unemployed youth by giving advertisements in newspapers and distributing pamphlets stating that he would provide placements to the unemployed youth in foreign countries without having any trade licence under Immigration Act and Rules. In this regard, the accused obtained Rs.2,00,O00/ - to Rs.3,0O,O00/ - from Page 2 ol'7 each candidate as processing fee totalling to Rs.2,0O,OO,000/ - from 200 victims and diverted the said amount to his vested interests like investment in immovable properties etc. The then Protector General of Immigrants accorded sanction Lo prosecute the accused.

4. During the course of trial, PWs. 1 to 19 were examined and Exs.P1 to P81 and MOs. 1 to 5 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

5. Basing on the materral and evidence adduced, the trial Court found the accused not guilty for the offences with which he was charge-sheeted holding that the prosecution has not hled the list of candidates who have already paid the amounts to PW18 on behalf of M/ s.MSR Consultancy and that no piece of evidence is available to establish that the accused maintained MSR Consultancy and Placcmcnt. Further, the prosecution did not send the receipts and cheques, alleged to have been issued by MSR Consultancy, to FSL for comparison. Further, the prosecution did not confront the receipts and cheques with PW I 5, who worked as receptionist in MNR Consultancy.

6. Aggrieved by the said findings, the prosecution filed the present criminal appeal mainly contendrng that the findings of the trial (" Pagc J of 7 Court are contrarJ' to law, weight of evidence particularly, the evidence of PWs.14 and 18, and probabilities of the case and failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appcllant/ State submilted that the cheques issued in Lhe name of the appellant by the aspirants demonsti-ate the involvement of the appellant in the crime and the said fact is very much established by the evidence on record and hence, the accused / respondent is liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 406, 42O and 24 of IPC read u,ith Sections 10 and 16 of Emigration Act.

8. On the other hand, Iearned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court upon scrupulously evaluating the evidcnce adduced and the material placed by the proseculion has found the accused not guilty and hence, the said finding cannot be interfered n'ith

9. As per the case of the prose cution, PWs. I to 13 are the victims and paid amount to the accused rvith a view to get jobs in abroad but lhe accused farled to provide them job as agreed in-spite of receipt of amounts. The prosecution did no[ adduce any evidence to establish that the accused ran business in the name of MSR International Placement and Consultancy. Prosecution also failed to get the printed receipts allegedly issued to the aspirants tested by FSL. PW1 admitted during cross-examination that he has not stated before the police that the accused promised to provide placement as well as demanded money for processing, placing and getting Visa or towards consultancy fee. trxs.Pl, 2,4 and 5 printed receipts, though contained signatures of somebody they do not bear the stamps or date underneath the signalure or the detatls of the person who signed them. PW14, who allegcd to have leased oul the premises to the accused for conducting his business, did not file any document like lease deed, rental receipts etc., to establish the said fact. It is not the evidence of the victims that the signatures appearing on the receipts were done by the accused. No witness has identihed the accused. PW18 though stated that he u'as pressurized by the accused and four other Railway ofhcials to work for M/s.MSR International Consultancy, and the sub-agcnts collected money from the candidates by way of demand drafts in the name of MSR International and sent the said amount to the accused and in turn the accused issued receipts, he too did not hle any document to prove the same. The above factual matrix rnake the prosecution case weak and basing upon such shaky evidence, the accused cannot be found fault with or convicted.

10. It is well settied law that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no I ,-..:y' Pagc 5 of 7 interference has to be made with the order unless thc 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 Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, Lo be characterizcd as perversc. Thcre is no embargo on the appellate Court in revieu'ing thc cvidence, upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumptions of innocence of the accused are further strengthened by acquittal. Thc golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cascs is that if tu.o views are possible on the e vidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to their innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted.

11. [n Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripural the Apex Court held as under: "lt is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiclion, is not warranted. However, if the appcal is heard by an appellate court, being the Iinal court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and revieu. the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, 1aw does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on 'lzottllscc+us I I exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurrsprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless hc is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to ils own conciusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidencc on rccord and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set asrde the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered u,ith only when there are "compelling and substanLial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/ report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on thc matcrials placed." 12. In Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2 the Apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the judgment of acqulttal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion I I '(2or l) 8 scc 635 \ i i Pa ee 7 of7 that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as to r,r,hether thc trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care.

13. When the above factual matrix are meticr_rlously observed, this Court is of thc view that the trial Court has passed the reasoned judgment and the grounds urged hercin do not have an1. lorce warranting interference of this Court with the said findings. In that vier,", of the matter, this Court is inclined to dismiss thc present criminal appeal confirming the Iindings of the trial Court.

14. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed conlirming the judgment in CC No.72 of 2006 dared 06. 1 l.2OO9 on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistr:rte, Hydcrabad. Interlocuto{. applications, if any, stand dismissed. SD/- N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SE N OFFICER iiii!f{$'i:'J,x&?:::w"J3?:XHi,,t3g,rt,lil1?:x:11 Two ccs to pubric prosecutor, ,ig' court io-rlir"''st.t, of rerangana at Hyderabad (OUT) to SRt. PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAo, Advocate [opUC] ?#:33 ! I To 1. 2. 3. 4 5 kul/PSL fu. '/o" /l-"'' ,t --i,'l 10 5 tl ir .i'.,', \.*,.\i"-r"'' --i:: o i4 t EP 21t25 I I ,r' '// i,' * rTtrih HIGH COURT DAf ED:24106t2025 JUDGMENT CRL.APPEAL No.i 148 ot 2014 DISMISSING THE CRL.APPEAL. N B \11