In ilIrinal Das v. State oJ llipurat the Apex Court held as under

THE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUIJ )PAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.655 ot. 2012 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is frled by the appellan /complainant challenging the judgment dated 22.O3.2O12, passed by the learned I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases-cu r -V Additional Chief Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'thc .rial Court') in C.C.No.23 of 2OO8, whereby the learned Judge founc the accused persons not guilty for the offences under Sections 7 anc Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 198t; 'for short, the ?.C. Act, 1988J.

2. The appellant herein is the complainant and resu >ndent herein is the accused before the trial Court. For the sake r,l convenience, hereinafter parties are referred to as the complair ant and the accused.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: AO Sri K. Maheshwar worked as Junior Assistant in tl-r : ofhce of the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District frot't O2.O7.2OO5 to O6.O3.2007. The de-facto complainant Sri P. S ubramanyam (hereinafter referred to as PW. 1) has been worki I 3 as Junior Accountant in Jyothi Engineering Enterprises anrl M/ s. Mani €- 2 Engineers and Fabricators, belonging to Sri Guruprasad, for the past 2Y" years. In the month of December, 2006, Sri Guruprasad and his family members met with a road accident near Kurnool while traveling to Tirumala, resulting in the death of his wife Smt. P.V.B. Mani and his son, and serious injuries to himself and his two daughters. Since M/s. Mani Engineers and Fabricators was in the name of Smt. P.V.B. Mani, Sri Guruprasad required a Family Members Certifrcate to continue business transactions after her death. As he was not in a position to move due to injuries, he instructed PW. 1 to approach the oflice of the Tahsildar, Balanagar and submit an application, which he had fitled for obtaining the said certificate. Accordingly, on

22.O2.2OO7, PW.l went to the office of the Tahsildar and handed over the application to the AO, who instructed PW.l to meet him after four days. On 26.02.2007, PW. I met AO again and enquired about the certifrcate, on which AO stated that he would prepare the certiltcate by obtaining tJle signatures of ttre RI and the Tahsildar and, in that context, demanded an amount of Rs.4,OOO/- as bribe. PW.l requested the AO to issue the certihcate as. per procedure, informing that Guruprasad was unwell, but the AO insisted that the certificate would be issued only upon payment of the demanded bribe. Again, on O2.O3.2OO7, PW.l met the AO in the olhce and repeated his request, but the AO reiterated his demand for Rs.4,OOO/- and clearly stated that the certificate would not be issued without Payment. As there was .A 3 no other option, PW. I told AO that he would return irr 3 to 4 days. As PW. I was not willing to pay the bribe, and after discus ring the matter with Guruprasad, he approached the DSP, ACB Hir Hyderabad on 05.03.2007 and submitted a wri erabad Rangb, ten complaint requesting legal action against the AO.

4. Basing on the said complaint, the DSP, ACB H'r Hyderabad registered a case in Crime No.S/ACB- - lerabad Range, R/2007 under Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 on 06.03.2007 an I took up the investigation. During the course of trap, the trap layi rg ofhcer along with PW.l proceeded to the office of the AO. At abot-t 4:15 p.m., the AO took PW. 1 aside, demanded and accepted the lr ibe amount of Rs.4,OOo/- from PW. 1 with his right harld and kept i in his left front shirt pocket. The phenolphthalein test conducted or the right hand Iingers and the inner flap of the left front shirt pr) 'ket of the Ao yielded positive results. The tainted currency notes ,vere recovered from the possession of AO in the presence of medizl ors. Mediator's report was drafted in the AO's oflice on 06.03.2007, .nd the tainted amount along with other material objects were seizerl under cover of post-trap proceedings. Thereafter, the trap laying ofli :er effected the arrest ofAO sent him for judicial custody. 1 I I I I I I i I I I 4 (1..

5. On appearance, charges under Sections 7 and 13(21 r/w section 13(1)(d) of the p.c. Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined p.Ws. 1 to l0 and marked Exs.p. I to p.2g and exhibited M.Os.l to 7.

7. After hearing the parties on both sides and upon considering the evidence on record, the trial Court opined that the prosecution has miserably lailed 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(21 r/w section l3(l)(d) of the p.C. Act arraigned against him beyond reasonable doubt and under these circumstances, accused is entitled to seek a strong.benel-rt of doubt in his favour. Hence, accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and, 13(21 r/w section l3(l[d) of the p.C. Act and accordingly, he was acquitted under section 24g(ll of cr.p.c for t].e offences under Sections 7 and 13(21 r/w section l3(1)(d) of the p.C. Act.

8. Heard Sri T.R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and specigl trublic prosecutor for ACB and Sri J.Mohan singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. perused the record. 5

9. Sri T.R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standirq . Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing for the rppe llant-State submitted that the trial Court failed in appreciatin I the evidence available on record and came to an erroneous con() usion that the appellant-State has not placed sufficient evidence to p' ove the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(21 rlw section l3( L)(d) of the P.C. Act. Hence seeks to allow the present Criminal All rcal by setting aside the judgment dated 22.03.2012, passed in C.C.ll, .23 of 2008.

10. Sri J.Mohan Singh, learned counsel appe rring for the respondent would contend that the trial Court, upon z ppreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on re :ord in right perspective passed the judgment and the interference rf this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Hence, seeks to disrri;s 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 persons.

11. 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 r: rde by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated b', illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, ,r some manifest hich could not have been P5lbly arrived at by any Court acting easonably.and 6 Y 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 acquitta,l is based. Genera,y, the order of acquittar sha, not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through ttre web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to their innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. t2. In ilIrinal Das Vs. State oJ llipurat the Apex Court held as under: "It is clear that in an appeal against aquittal in the absence of peruersitA in the judgment and ord.er, interference bg this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisd"btion, is not u)arranted.. Howeuer, if the appeal is leard. bg an appettate court, being the final court of fact, b futlg competent to re_ oppreciate, recgnsider an-d. reuiew tlrc euidence and take its ottn decbion In oth.er words, laut does not prescribe ang timitatian restiction or ond.ition on exercise of sttch potter and. the appellate aurt b free to arriue at its oun anclusion keepatg in mtnd. tlnt acqtittal prouides for presumption in fannur of tlrc orcused.. The presumption of tnnoence i"s auailable to the person and. in ciminal juri.sprudence euery person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proued. guiltg by tle ampetent court. If tuo reo^sonable uiews ari possible on the basis of the euidene on reard., tLe appe ate court sltould..not disturb the findings of aquittal. There b io limitation on the part of the appllate court to reuieut th.e euidence upon tthich the ord_er of aquittal is found. and. to @ttle to its outn conclusian. Tle appellate @urt can also reuieu tle anrcIusion aniued. at bg the trial Court uith respect to both facts and. lau.t. Wite d.ealing uith ' (zor r) s scc ezg 7 the oppeal against aquittal prefened bg the State, it : the appellate court to marshal tle entire eui.dente ott only bg giuing cogent and adequate reasons s€t judgment of aquittal. An order of aquittal is to be intr onlg uhen tLlere are "compelling and substantial r doing so. If the ord.er is "clearlg unreasonable", it i,s c reason for interference. When the trial Court Lras euidence or misread the material euid-ence or lrs ign<n d.oanments like dging declaration/ report of balli.stic e the oppellate court is competent to reuerse tlrc d.ecisior Court depending on the materials placed." the dutg of record and a-side the rfered with lasons" for compelling Tnored the mateial =d Yperts etc., of the trial

13. .ln Maloth Somaraju Vs. State oJ Andhra prac esh2 the Apex , I Court held that there can be no two opinions that mere y because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view car. be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate {) lurt has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the judgmt nt of acquittal and unless the acquittal is found to be perverse )r not at all supportable and where the appellate Court comes to I re conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittel cu.r .not be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as to whether tt e trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care.

14. As the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondent/accused, in rriew of the Judgments referre,l to above and taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am ol the view that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. " '' .'; \ '? 1zo t t; s scc ots 8

15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confrrming the judgment dated 24.08.2011, passed by the learned I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C.C.No.7 of 2006. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD OEPUTYREGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER /ffRUE COPY// \ To, t lhe t Additional Speciat Judge for SpE and ACB Cases Cum V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (With .'""oiO"j 2. One CC to Sri T. R. Ramachandra Reddy, Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB tOpUCI 3. One CC to SRt. J MOHAN STNGH Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies DUPSL HIGH COI'RT DATED:1510712025 I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.655 of 2012 ,.:. .1c-:"' / I I 0 i, t:i 205 ') n/ t),1 t 'er-o DISMISSING THE APPEAL )(- \M