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

Counsel for the Appellant :Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel.for the Respondent No.2 : Sri V Ramesh Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SR.EENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.652 oF 2012 ORDER: This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 19.03.2010, in C.C.No.2l8 of 2005, whereunder respondents/accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted for the offences under Sections 409, 420,465 and 468 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 25.09.2002, LW.l . .:! r lodged a complaint stating that accused No. l, the then Assistant Manager of the Sanathnagar branch, committed fra;rd, bV ..t i misappropriating Rs.5.29 lakhs using cheques surrendered at the time of account closure. Accused No.l being the passing officer, passed some of these cheques himself and withdrew cash in collusion with other branch staff. The mentioned amount was a tentative figure revealed during a preliminary audit, with further inspection ongoing. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary legal action.

3. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that during pendency of this criminal appeal. respondent No.l/accused No.2 died. By virtue of the i I I I 't -t ,''l \;'\i \ 2 same, the appeal against respondent No.1/accused No.2 was dismissed as abated, pursuant to the order dated 28.07.2022.

4. Heard Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr.V.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused No.3.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that though there was a clear conspiracy among accused Nos.l to 3, who committed offences resulting ,in a substantial financial loss of Rs.50,47,000/- to ', HDCC Bank, Sanathnagar Branch, the prosecution had duly discharged its burden by proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. He further t t. submitted that, in order to establish its case, the prosecution examined key witnesses, including bank employees, who categoricalty deposed that accused Nos.2 and 3 were working as.cashiers during the relevant period. However, the trial Court without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, as well as the evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, passed the impugned judgrnent acquitting respondent No.2/accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, and 468 of the IPC and the same is L, J contrary to law, and respondent No.2/accused No.3 is liable to be convicted for the said offences

6. Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent No.2/accused No.3 contended that at no point of time respondent No.2/accused No.3 discharged his duties as a cashier, as he was appointed only as an attender in HDCC Bank. He further submitted that even the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-3, clearly stated in his evidence that there is no designation such as'Officiating Assistant' or 'Officiating Cashier' as per the bank's by-laws. The trial Court, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly held that the prosecution failed to establish that respondent No.2/accused No.3 worked as a cashier during the relevant'period. He also submitted that no incriminating material was seized from the possession of respondent No.2/accused No.3 to substantiate thealleged conspiracy among Accused Nos.l and

2. Accordingly, the trial Court rightly passed the impugned judgment by giving cogent reasons and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals 4 that, based on the complaint lodged by LW-l dated 25.09.2002, Cnme No.209 of 2002 was registered against accused Nos.l to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, and 468 of the IPC The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad and the said Court has taken cogntzaoce and the same was numbered as C.C.No.218 of 2005. During the pendency of the said case, accused No.l passed away, and accordingly, the proceedings against him were dismissed as abated. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded with the case against accused Nos.2 and 3. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.l to 4 were examined and Exs.Pl to P24 documents were marked. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both parties, the trial Court, by judgment dated 19.03.2010, acquitted the respondents/accused Nos.2 and 3.

8. The record discloses that the Deputy General Manager of HDCC Bank was examined as PW-3. In his evidence, he specifically stated that there is no dyffnation or provision for an 'Officiating Assistant' or 'Officiating Cashier'under the bank's by-laws 5

9. Even according to the evidence of PWs.l to 4, the respondent No.2/accused No.3 was appointed as attender in HDCC Bank. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that respondent No.2/accused No.3 had discharged duty as cashier at relevant point of time.

10. It is pertinent to mention that the major allegations were levelled against accused No. l, who was working as ths Assistant Manager of the ,,Bank. However, since accused No.l passed away prior to the corlmencement of trial, the proceedings against him were abated. The iodly allegation against respondent No.2/accused No.3 is that he assisted 'accused No.l in the capacity of 'Officiating Assistant' and 'Officiating rCashier' respectively. However, the prosecution failed to adduce any substantive-widence to prove that respondent No.2raccused No.3 performed such role or supported accused No.l in the commission of the alleged offences. The trial Court specifically observed that neither incriminating material was seized from the possession of respondent No.2/accused No.3 during investigation nor produced any evidence to substantiate the allegations made against respondenl No.2/accused No.3. 6 I l. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Governmenrt of NCT of Delhi) and anothert , held that while dealing with an appeat against acquitaal, the appellant Court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. :,, 1),. t In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradeshz 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 ,i order of acquittal, held atpata 70, as follows: "70. In the light of the above, the High Courl and other appellate courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallizid by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: I. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compeUing reasons" for doing so. A number of intstances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to ' 1ZOZZ18 Suprerne Court Cases 536 '(zOOg) l0 Supreme Court Cases 45 \ \ 7 discard the trial court's decision. compelling reasons" exist when: "Very substantiol and t) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong: ii) T'he trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage ofjus tice " ; iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing n'ith the evidence was patently illegal; v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unju.st and unreasonable: vi) Th.e trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material eryidence or h'ats i'giored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o thefindingsofthe trial court.

3. If nuo reasonable views can be reached one that leuds to acquittal, the other to convictton the High Courts/appellate caurts must rule infavour of the accused."

13. The learned Magistrate, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record and hearing both parties, passed the impugned judgment dated 19.03.2010, by giving cogent findings. This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the findings given by the learned Magistrate. 8

14. Aceording[y, the criminal appeal f,rled by the State fails and is hereby dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed Sd/. T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUW REGISTRAR Note: This order is amended as per the Court order dated 31-10-2025 passed in lA.No. 1 of 2025 by replacing the Bank Name as 'HDCC' in place of 'HDFC'. This amended order substitutes the earlier order dispatched on 04-10-2025. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRARe SECTION OFFICER

1. The Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

3. One CC to SRI V RAMESH KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies To, M ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATEDi 281 81202 3111012025 'irii: :i 'o 0 3 litl 20'fi c,J t * AMENDED ORDER CRLA.No.652 of 2012 DISMISSING THE CRLA 1 .) , p/