The Honble Supreme Court in the case of N. Vijavakumar v. State of T.N.'zheld as hereunder

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy (SPL PP ACB TS) Counsel for the Respondents: T.ADITYA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT i. "?:,.. -.- t{ 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRTMINAL APPEAL N o-L3O2 OF 2O11 JUDGMENT: The State, aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents/A- 1 ald A-2, is questioning the judgment dated 23.O5.2O11 in S.C.No.2O of 2010, on the file of II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad' The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, and 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB cases and Sri T'Aditya, learned counsel for respondents.

3. A 1 dieri, ald accordingly, the appeal against him was abated on 1 | .O4 .2025.

4. The Appeal is heard insofar as A 2 is concerned'

5. P.W. 1 is the defacto complainant' According to him' he rvas the Proprietor of Sri Sai Binding Works' He used to purchase rau, material from Vijayawada ar-rd Hyderabad rvhich included taxes. On 13.06.2003, A-1 u'ent to his shop l t, 2 -.1 and verilied the details of bills and accordingly levied Rs. 1,809/- for the year 2OO2_O3 and Rs.7, 17 1/_ for the year 2OO3-O4. On 18.O6,2003, A_1 informed p.W. 1 that arr amount of Rs.8,980/_ has to be paid as tax: Further, penalty of Rs.2,OOO/- was levied as user charges. p.W. 1 paid the entire amount on 18.06.2003. Though the amounts were paid, A-1 did not returt the bills. For returning the bills A-1 informed p.W. I that he is competent to impose hea,"y penalties and taxes and in order not to impose the same, an arnount of Rs.1O,OOO/_ has to be given to him as bribe. P.W. 1 requested that he would pay the said amount as Rs.6,OO0/- and Rs.4,OO0/- in two installments. Then, A_1 called P.W. 1 and informed that he would send A_2 to the shop and amount shall be handed over to him. When A_2 went to the shop, p.W. 1 expressed that he was not having the amount and that he will talk t A_1. Ot 22.06.2003, p.W. 1 went to ACB office and filed complaint trx.p.3. Along with the complaint, he also enclosed Exs.p. 1 and p.2, which are receipts of payment of money by p.W. 1.

6. The trap was laid on 30.06.2003. After completing the formalities, entire team went to the office of A_ l. p.W. 1 entered the office of A- 1 . A_ 1 enquired about the bribe -!.q1E8'ry 3 J I arnount and P.W.1 stated that he brought Rs.6,000/-. Accordingly, A-1 asked P.W. 1 to handover the said amount to A-2. P.W.1 gave the amount to A-2 and A-2 kept the amount in the right side pocket of his palt. P.W. 1 u,ent out ald conveyed the prearranged signal [o the tiap party. On his signal, DSP/Umakantha Reddy entered into the office and conducted test on both A-1 and A-2. Test on A-l's hand proved negative, ithile A-2's hand proved positive. The said amount was later handed over to DSP by A-2. Since DSP Urnakantha Reddy died, in his place P.W.7 was examined, who was part of the trap. 7 . Having concluded the trap proceedings, A- 1 and A-2 were arrested. Thereafter, investigation was done by Inspector/ P.W.B and charge sheet was filed.

8. Learned Special Judge examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8 and also marked trxs.P. 1 to P. 18. M.Os. 1 to 10 were also brought on record by the prosecution. Exs.D.l and D.2 which are the letters issued by the Commercial Tax Officers n ere marked on behalf of the defence. 9 . The evider-rce insofar as A- 1 is concerned is not discussed since the case is abated against him. 4

10. Insofar as A-2 is concerned, learned Special Judge found that at no point of time, A-2 was informed that amount was bribe amount. Even according to the evidence placed on record, A-2 did not have the knowledge that the amount received from P.W. 1 at the instance of A- 1 was that of bribe amount. Learned Special Judge further found that the demand of bribe amount was for return of the bills, however, P.W.l himself admitted in his cross-examination that the bills were received under Ex.P.4 and his endorsement at Ex.P.4(a). Though P.W. 1 stated that some other bills were not received, however, the details of such bills were not mentioned.

11. Learned Special Judge found that the demand aspect insofar as A-1 is concerned was not proved. The subsequent recovery of amount from A-2 is of no consequence.

12. In Mallappa and others u. State of Karnatakat tine Honourable Supreme Court summarised the principles whereby appeals against acquittals can be interfered with. At para-42 of the Judgment, it was held as follows; I IZOZ+1 I Supreme Court Cases 544 ;{ i t ! : i i I r I t I I I I I I t I I 5 "42. our criminai jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguarcls and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended [o prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play wh ile deciding an appeal from acquittal couid be summarised as: (r) Apprreciation of evidence is the core elemcnt of a crinlinal trial and such appreciation must be inclusive of all evidence, oral or comprehensive - documentary; (ir) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iizJ If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that tu,o vicws are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iu) If the view of thc trial court is a legally plausible vieu, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the revcrsal of acquittal; (u) If thc appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciatioh of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (ur) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction' thc appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversilv or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court." 6 (

13. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of N. Vijavakumar v. State of T.N.'zheld 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. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka l(2OO7l 4 SCC 415] 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 ol the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p. 432) "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following generai principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal againsl an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2t The Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", ,,very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions,,,,,glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 2 1zoz: 7 s scc eez I I I { I I 1 1 "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 lo 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 fundamental princrple of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be' presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty 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 tu,o reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court shoulcl not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded bv the trial court."

14. The role of A-2 is confined to the amount being received by him at the instance of A- 1. As rightly found by the learned Special Judge that at no point of time A-2 had the knowledge of any kind of demand of bribe by A- 1. P.W. 1 also stated that A-2 never demalded anrrount towards bribe or that he approaci-red P.W. 1 on behalf of A-1 knowing that P.W.1 would pass on the arnount which was bribe meant for A-1.

15. The reasons given by the learned Special Judge are based on record. There are no compelling reasons to I i 8 I To, interfere and reverse the judgrnent of acquittal insofar as A-2 is concerned.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// -----._--l> SECTION OFFICER

1. The the ll Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRI T.Bala Mohan Reddy, (SPL PP ACB TS) [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI f.ADITYA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Svs/PSL 1-" HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 I ORDER /-: Ir 16 sEP ,:,*i..,. a,.\ Mii" CRLA.No.1302 ot 2011 D€.sp * t ci-l EO I I i j l I ./3 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL d /..6 f,