The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N' Viiavakumar v. State of T.N. held as hereunder

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Sridhar Chikyala SC SPL PP ACB TS Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Gokula Rama Rao The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K'SURENDER CRIMINAL APPPAL No.947 OF 2013 JUDGMENT: l. The State-ACB, aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section i3(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act' 1988' vide judgment in C.C.No.3S of 2010, dated 14'05'2013, passed by the First AdditionalspecialJudgeforSPEandACBCases-cum-VAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed the present appeal'

2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent/accused was working as a Senior Assistalt and was also in-charge of Sub Registrar Office in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Allampur in Mahabubnagar District.P.W.2,r,r'hoisthebrother-in-lawofthedefactocomplainant' purchased Acs.2.38 guntas of land in Undavally village of Maravapadu Mandal in Mahabubnagar District from D'W'1' Both P.Ws.larrd2visitedtheofficeofthesub-Registraron24.06.2009, andmettheaccusedregardingtheregistrationofthesaledeed.The accused demanded bribe of Rs'9,00O/ - to complete the process of registeringthesa]edeed.Sincetheaccusedinsistedthatthebribe amounthastobepaid,bothP.Ws.land2wenttotheACBofficein the evening of the same day at 4.30 p.m, and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. The complaint u'as given to the Joint Director, ACB' The Joint ./ I I I I I 2 Director, ACB in turn, entrusted the complaint of P.W.1, to P.W,7 for taking necessa,ry action.

3. P.W.7/DSP then asked P.Ws. 1 and 2 to come on the next day morning along with the proposed bribe amount. The next day morning, crime was registered at 1O.OO a.m. Pre-trap proceedings were concluded in the presence of P.Ws. I, 3, 7 , and other trap party members.

4. After. concluding the pre-trap proceedings, all the trap party members went to the office of the accused. Around 4.30 p.m, P.W. 1 and D.W. 1, who is the vendor, entered into the of{ice. P.W. 1 enquired with the accused about the bribe amount. Thereafter, registration of sale deed Ex.PS was completed. Then, on demand, the amount was handed over by P.W. l, and accused placed it in the right side table drawer.

5. P.W.l, then went outside and relayed the signal to the trap party. The trap party entered into the office, and DSP/P.W.7 confronted the accused about the demand and acceptance of bribe. Then, the hands of accused were tested with sodium carbonate solution to find out whether the accused handled the bribe €rmounr which was smeared with phenolphtha-lein powder. The test on both the hands proved positive. 3

6. The accused, when questioned during post-trap proceedings, stated that he has not demanded any amount from P.W. 1, and that he went to washroom outside the office. In his absence, the amount must have been kept in his table drawer.

7. Having concluded the post trap proceedings, the DSP/P.W-7, seized the registration documents etc., which are relevant to the case. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to P.W.8. After obtaining sanction orders, charge sheet was filed by P.W.8.

8. Learned Special Judge examined P.Ws. 1 to 8, marked Exs.Pl to P18 and MOs.1 to 7 on behalf of the prosecution. The accused examined the vendor of the property, who sold the property to P'W.2, as D.W. 1. During trial, Exs.Dl to D5 were also marke{ on behalf of the accused. g. tearned Special Judge acquitted the accused on the following grounds: 1) P.W.l was a friend of TV reporter of TV9, who took him to the ACB office, and introduced him to the Joint Director, ACB. The complaint was filed on 24.06.2009, in the evening, and the trap party gathered at 6.00 a.m, the next day morning. There was no occasion for the DSP, to make any discrete enquiries regarding correctness of the complaint. 4 2) The accused, at the earliest point of time explained, that he was briefly absent from his chambers and went to attend nature's call, and during that time, P.W. 1 must have planted the amount in his table drawer, which is probable. 3) The vendor of the plot was examined as D.W. 1. According to him, he and P.W. 1 went inside the oflice and there, the thumb impressions etc., were taken in the concerned register. Therea-fter, D.W. I went out, and he stated that in his presence, the accused never demanded any amount. 4) P.W.4, attender in the office, is another crucial witness, who stated about P.W. 1 and D.W.l's presence in the office on the said day. After P.W.4 obtained thumb impressions of the vendors and the vendee in the sa-le deed and other registers, document-Ex. P5 was handed over to P.W. 1. The accused went outside to attend nature's cal1, which is situated outside the office, according to P.W.4. The prosecution did not declare P.W.4 as hostile to the prosecution case.

10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of ACB would submit that the hands of the accused tumed positive. The money was found in the table drawer of the accused. There is no reason why P.W. 1 would speak false against the appellant, unless bribe was demanded. In the back ground of the amount being a I I 5 recovered at ttre instance of the accused, presumption has to be drawn that the accused had demalded and accepted bribe amount'

11. Learned Special Judge, having discussed the facts of the case' found that the accused had given spontaneous explanation' that he went outside and he was not aware of the tainted currency, which was in his table drawer. l,earned Special Judge further found that the evidence of P.W.7, P.W.3, and P'W' 1 was inconsistent According to P.W.3/mediator, the currency of Rs'9,OOO/- was recovered from the table drawer of the accused. P.W.3 deposed that after conducting test' the accused was asked about the amount by the DSP. However, P.W.7/DSP initially stated that he asked accused about the bribe amount, then the accused produced the same from his right side table drawer. However, P.W.7 changed his version before the Court below and stated that, initially, tests were conducted and thereafter' the amount was recovered at the instance of the accused'

12. The discrepant evidence of P'Ws'3 and 7 coupled with the explanation of the accused regarding his absence gives rise to the probability of P.W.l planting amount in the table drawer of the accused, in his absence' P'W'4 stated during his examination that after handing over the documents, accused went out to the bath room' which is outside the office room' The absence of the accused in his offrce room is admitted and not disputed by the prosecution' 6

13. ln Mallappa and others a. State of Kolzro:to.kd r, the Honourable Supreme Court summarised the principles whereby appeals against acquittals can be interfered with. At para-42 of ttre Judgment, it was held as follows; u42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as: (r) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (n) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iif If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iu) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (u) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (uz) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversit5r or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court." 1(2024) 3 Supreme court Cases 544 I 7

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N' Viiavakumar v. State of T.N. held as hereunder:- "20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a "possible view", having regard to the evidence on record.ItiSsubmittedthatthetrialcourthasrecordedcogentand valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal' Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeai against acquittai and the appeal against conviction' By conside ring the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment n ChandrapPa v. State of Karnatetka l(2oo7\ 4 scc 41sl has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal' Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p' 432\ "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view' the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittai emerge: Procedurc review, re-apPreciate and tJ.e order of acquittal is 1973 puts no limitation, ch power anrl an aPPellate h its own conclusion, both (1) An appellate court has full power to reconsider the evidence upon which founded. r: of Criminal (2) The Cod restriction or condition on exercise of su court on the evidence before it may reac on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "r'erY strong circumstanct:s", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes"' etc' are not intendeci to curtail extensive powers of al appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused' Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the t l I \ 'l2ozry3sccoaz 8 fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilly by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the hnding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.'

15. The reasons given by the learned Special Judge are probable and on the basis of the admissions made by the witnesses during the course of trial. As argued by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the recovery, c€rnnot form basis to draw presumption that it was the accused who had demanded and accepted the bribe amount. As already discussed, the handing over of the amount by the accused is disdrepalt insofar as the evidence of P.W.3/mediator and P.W.7/DSP i's congerned. Moreover, in the back ground of there being no initial inquiry that was conducted and in due haste with which trap was laid, the same would only lend credibility to the version of the defence of the accused. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the acquittal of the accused.

16. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR I ION OFFICER To, 1 The I Additional S pecial Judge for SPE and ACB Case Chief Judge, Ci ty Civil Court, One CC to Sri dhar Chikya Sri One CC to Sri G okula Rama Rao, Advocate loPUCl Two CD Co Hyderabad. (wi la, SC SPL PP th records, if any) ACB TS IOPUC] 2 3 4 um-V Additional VH w pres I HIGH COURT DATED: 171A212025 JUDGMENT I I CRLA.No.947 of 2013 J o ( t 6E\ l7 mil m * DISMISSING THE APPEAL ^