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

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri T L Nayan Kumar (SC SpL pp ACB TS) Counsel for the Respondent : Sri D purnachandra Reddy The Court delivered the following: /n HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.477 OF 2OL2 JUDGMENT: The present appeal was filed by Anti-Comrption Beureau questioning the acquittal of the respondent/accused Nos.l & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and l3(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Com-rption Act 1988 (for short the Act), of respondent/accused No.l and for offence under Section 12 of the P.C. Act against A.2.

2. Accused No.l was working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. PW-1, the defacto complainant lodged complaint with the A.C.B. stating that an application rvas llled with the Commercial Tax Officer, Charminar Circle, for issuance o1'APGST & CST registration certificate and obtained receipt. Thereafler accused No. I visited the house of the defacto complainant lor velillcation on 07.02.2004 and asked PWI to meet him in his office on 09.02.2004 (@ ll:00 A.M. PWI approached A.1 and when enquired accused No.l about his work, there was demand for Rs.3,000/- as bribe, however A.l rcduccd the bribe amount to Rs.1,500/- and asked PW-l to pay the saicl amount to accused No.2. The said grievance was carried to the A.C.B. and PW-l filed written complaint dated 09.02.2004. The D.S.P., A.C.B.. City ttange-1, Hyderabad, having received the said o complaint laid trap against accused No.l. On the very same day, the trap party proceeded to the office of the accused No.l. PW-l handed over the amount of Rs.1,500/- to accused No.2 who is a private person towards payment of challan for the service charges and fee payable to the advocate @ Rs.500/-.

3. The learned Special Judge acquitted accused No.l mainly on the basis o[ there being no work pending with accused No.1. Accused No. I had already prepared the certificate of registration which is Ex-P7 after making inquiries and had also sent the said certificate to the dealels service center on 09.02.2004 itself. Once the certificate was already sent, the question of any pending work with accused No.l does not arise.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though the accused No. I had already sent the certificate, however, the demand was made two days prior to the date of trap and his intention was clear regarding the bribe amount.

5. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and anotherl, held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, parlicularly when cvidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that ' (2022) I Supreme Court Cases 536 i 3 an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appetlate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

6. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows: "70. In the light o.f the obove, the High Court and other appellate Courts should fnllow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going lo overrule or otherwise disturb the lrial court's acquittal: l. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal il it has "very substantial and compelling reasons " for doing su. A number of instance,r ru-ise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reosons" to discard the.trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reqsons " exist when.: i) The triol court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong: ii) The triat courl s decision v,as basecl on an etoneous view of t I I , law: miscarriage of jus tice ''; iii)The t|iol court'.s judgntent is likely to result in " grave iv) The entire approuch o./ the trial court in dealing with the eyidence was patentl.y illegal: u) The rrial court's jutlgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable: vi) The triol court hus ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or ha.r ignored material documents like dying declarations/report o.f' the ballistic expert, etc. vii) 2. The appellatc courl nust alnays give proper weight and This li.st is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. consideration o the t'indings of tlrc trinl court. 'z1ZOO81 rO Supreme Court Cases 450 4

3. If two reasonable views can be reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction _the High Coits/appellate cour* must rule in favour of the accused. "

7. Though it is alleged that the demand for bribe was made, however, accused No. I had already completed his work and dispatched the certificate of registration to the dealer service center even prior to the trap being laid. In the said circumstances it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to prove the demand for the reason of doing any official work pending with accused No. l.

8. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the finding of the leamed Special Judge whrle acquitting accused Nos.l & 2. Accordingly, the instant appeal d'eserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. _ IVliscellancous applications, ifan1,, pending shall stand dismissed. Sd/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad. (With records)

2. One CC to SRl. T L NAYAN KUMAR (SC SPL PP ACB TS) {OPUCI 3. One CC to SRI D PURNACHANDRA REDDYAdvocate [OPUC! 4. Two CD Copies DL/gh HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2025 JUOGMENT CRLA.No.477 ot 2O12 DISMISSING THE APPEAL ?5 (-) f- SrAr( 1H 9^ ( 0 7 i,l ,l t oEsp c 1 I (-\? 6