In Mrinal Das v. State of Tripurat the AJ cx Court held as under

Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENITGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.484 OF 2olz JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeat is filed by the appell rnt/complainant challenging the jrrdgment dated 10.01.2O14, passe< 1ry the learned First Additional Special Judge for SPE ancl A( rll cases-cum-V Additionat Chief ,.ludge, City Civil Courts, Hyderaba I (for short, 'the trial Court') in C.C.No.27 of 20 11, u,hereby the lear rcd Judge found the accused not rluilty for the o fle nces under Sectio:rs 7 and Section 13(i)(d) r/u. 13(2t of the Prevcntion ol Corruption Act, I988 (for short, 'the Act, 1988').

2. The brief fa:ts of the case of the prosecution ar, zrs follows: The accused wzLs; working as the Village Revenuc .)lficer (VRO) ior Namavaram villalle in Mothey Mandal of Nalgonda District from 2OO7 to 17.O9.2O|O. The de /acto complainant (PW. 1) pr-r'r:I-rased 25 acres of land in Sy.Nos.784 and 785 o[ Namavaram villagt in the month of November, 2OO5 under an agreement of sale executrcl by his vendors Mr. Bushireddy Veera Reddy and others and th, said land was deceptively solcl by the same vendors subsequentll. 1.o one Mr. Yerra Bhadra Reddy urder a sale deed and also under an .greement of sale- cum-GPA. Aggrieved by the illegal alienation, PW. I filed a civil suit I 2 challenging the transaction and also initiated the necessary proceedings before the RDO, Suryapet seeking the cancellation of the mutation order passed by the MRO/Tahsildar, Mothey Mandal effecting the mutation on the name of Mr. Yerra Bhadra Reddy. PW.11 the then RDO, Suryapet passed trx.Pl4 order dated 27.O3.2O1O thereby setting aside the order passed by the MRO/Tahsildar, Mothey Mandal in respect of Ac.1O.01 guntas of land by holding that the sale effect by way o[ an agreement o[ sale-cum-GPA in favour of Mr. Yerra Bhadra Reddy could not have conveyed a title to the said Mr. Yerra Bhadra Reddy and thereby ordered for incorporation of names of the original pattedars in respect of land in the name of Mr. Yerra Bhadra Reddy and keeping the mutation in respect of Acs.12.O8 guntas of remaining land till the hnality of the case pending before the Civil Court.

3. On I 1.08.2010, PW. i submitted Ex.P21 application to the o[fice I of PW.9 seeking for issuance of certified copies of the pahanies from the year 2OO4-2OO5 onward. On 28.08.20 10 PW. I approached the accused and requested him to expedite the process of issuing the cerfified copies of pahalies to PW. 1, but the accused demanded for the payment of bribe of Rs.2O,0O0/- for doing an official favour to PW. 1 and made it clear to PW.l that he would not act in expediting ;i*- 3 the process unless his demand for the payment of tl r,: bribe was met with. On 15.09.2010 PW. 1 met the accused at h s residence and renewed his request, but the accused stuck to his g.urs ancl insisted PW.l to complv ',1'ith his demand for the paymenl .rf the bribe and after much besee,:hing made by PW,1, the accused r:'cluced the bribe amount to Rs.1O.000/ and suggestcd to PW. i to [)i v an installment of Rs.5,000/- befrrre obtaining certificcl copies of the rahanies and the remaining amount a[[er the receipt of the certilr, ri copies of the pahanies. ln the meantime, PW. 12 got macle the dis 'rcet enquiries to ascertain the pinn facie truthfulness of the contents ol Ex.Pl and the antecedents of the accused and obtained the due per rnission from the DG, ACB, H),derrrbad, PW. 12 took the steps for sc'uring PW.3 and LW.4, the tu,o Gcvernment servants, to act as the nldiators from the proposed trap of thc accused. On 17.O9.2O1O at rLbout 7:0O A.M, PW. 12 registereC Dx.P2O FIR against the a<;r rtsed in Crime No.23/ACB-HR/11010 for the offencc under Section 7 of the Act and took up investigiltion. Necessary arrangements rv, rrc made at that place under Ex.I)7 report of pre-trzrp proceedings lrom 9:O0 A.M to 10:15 A.M, for the intended trap ol the accused, ,luring which the proposed bribe amount of Rs.5,O00/- produced by rW. 1 was tainted with phenolphthrllein powder. PW. I took out the t:rinted cash from .,his left side shirt pocllgt and handed over the sam' to the accused, \ \\ 4 which the accused received with his right hand, counter with both hands and kept on the table and placed MO.7 newspaper over it. Then, on the pre-arranged signal given by PW. 1, the trap laying ofhcer along with his team rushed to the spot and caught accused. The taintcd currcncy noLes were recovered from the accused. The chemical te sts conducted proved positive. Thereafter, the trap laying officer effected the arrest of the accused and sent him for judicial custody.

4. On appearance, charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the Act, 1988 were framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P. 1 to P.21 and exhibited M.Os. 1 to 8.

6. After hearing the parties on both sides and upon considering the evidence on record, the trial Court opined that the prosecution has miserably failed in placing cogent, convincing, reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence so as to drive the Court to come to irresistible conclusions on the guilt of accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), r/w Section 13[2] of the Act arraigned 7 5 against him beyorrd reasonable doubt and under thes : circumstances, accused is entitkrd to seek a strong benefil of dor-r >t in his favour. Hence, accused i:; found not guilty for the offences rnder Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), r/ri Section 13(2) of the Act and acr: rrdingly, he was acquitted under Section 248(ll ol Cr.P.C lor thr ,rffeuces under Sections 7 and 13;(1)(d), r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. 7 . Heard Sri Vishal Gandhi, learned coun ;el representing Sri T.Bala Mohrrn Reddy, Iearned Standing Cottt rsel :r.nd Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, for thc appellant ancl Sri (i.Prashanth learned counsel representing Sri D.Purnachandrir Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

8. Sri Vishal Gandhi, learned counsr 1 r'epresenting Sri T.Bala Mohan Redd5,, ls2pncd Standing Cou tsel and Special Public Prosecut,:r for ACB, appearing for thr appellant-State submitted that the trial Court failed in apprecizrt ing the evidence available on recrlrd and came to an erroneous co r clusion that the appeliant-State has not placed sufficient evidence t() provo the offence punishable under Sections 7 and l3(1)(d), r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence see ks to allow the present Crlminal . \ppeal by setting aside the judgment dated 10.01.2014, passed in C.Ll No.27 of 2011. 6

9. Sri G.Prashanth learned counsel representing Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the trial Court, upon appreciating the oral ald documentary evidence availablc on record in right perspective passed the judgment and the interfcrence of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present Criminal Appeal. In the case on hand, there is no convincing evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused person. 1O. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegalify or the conclusion recorded by it is such, which could not have been possibly arrivcd at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore, to be characterized as perverse' There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is l\c 7 that if two views irre possible on the evidence adduce,l in the case, one pointing to the gl.rilt of the accused and the other to l is innocence, the vieu. u,hich is favourable to the accused should be ad rptccl. 1 1. In Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripurat the AJ cx Court held as "lt is clear lhat in an appeal against acquittal in L,t absence of peruersitg ir,. the judgment and order, interference bL.1 this Court exercising ;.ts extraordinary juisdiction, is t1t tt \ra.fianted. Hott-teuer, if the appeal is hertrd bg an appeLlate r: rurt, being the linaL court of facl, is fullg compelent to re appreci t ', reconsider und reuieu.t the euidence ancl take its cutn decision. .rt. olher tuords, lau does ttot prescibe any Limitation, restiction t t condition on exercise of such potuer and the appellate court is f e? to aniue at its oun conclusion keeping in mind that acquitt( l. prouides Jbr presumption in fauour oJ the accused. The p .esurnption of innocence is auailable to the person and in cimina .jrLrisprudence euery persotl is presumed to be innocent unless hc r; proued guilty bg the conrytetent court. If two reasonable uietus c re possible on the basis of the eu[dence on record, the appellate anLi sLtould. not dtsturb the 11nd[ngs of acquittal. There is no limitot ort on the part of the appeliate court to reuieut the euidence upon t ,hich the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own c mclus[on. The appellate caurt can also reuieu-.' the conclusion aniued ot bg the tial Court utith respect to both fcrcts and latu. Whi e' dealing uiLh the appeal a goinst acquittal preferred by the Stat<,. t. ts the dutlt of the appellete court to marshal the entire euiden<x: cnt record and onlg by gi,Ling cogent and adequate reason-s ;eL asi.de the judgment oJ acqutttal. An order of acquittal is to be ;.nterJbred utith onlg u-then there are "compelling and substantic\ reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearlg unreasonable", it ,s a compelli.ng reason for interference. When the tial Court hc s ignored the euidence or misread the material euidence or has ir.r.ctred mateial docu.ments t.ike dging-Aalaration/ report of ballist c experts etc., ' lzor ry e scc +ze l I ' the appellate court is competent to reuerse the decision of the tiaL Court depending on the mateiaLs placed."

12. ln Maloth Som;araju Vs, State o;f Andhra Pradesh2 the Apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that merely becatrse 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 acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all supportable and where the appellate Court comes to the conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as to whether the trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care.

13. As the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondent/ accused, in view of the Judgments referred to above and taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am of the view that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. L4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed conhrming the judgment dated 1O.O 1 .2014, passed by the learned First Additional Sfriat 'lzorry r scc 63s :w 9 Judge for SPE aad ACB cases-cum-V Additional C hief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyde:rabad in C.C.No.27 of 2011. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall st,ind closed SD/. V,KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR A,'- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The 1st Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases' Hyderabad' 2. The Inspector of Police, Anti-Conuption Burea l' Hyderabad Range' Hyderabad

3. One CC to Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy (SC for ACB SPI' PP) IOPUC] 4. One CC to Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate [OF UCI 5. Two CD CoPies VH/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1410712025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.484 o12014 /': \ \.'{ .': {. ( l0sEPrut ti .on + -l ..-.Dzt I CiiEO DISMISSING THE APPEAL I I 7 1a /,/? ,/.< 5