The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDDY (SC FOR ACB SPL PP TS) Counsel for the Respondent: SRI A.VISWANATH The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOT RABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUCTOPAL CRIMINAJ, A.PPEAI NO.793 OF 2014 JTIDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant challenging the judgment dated 28.02.2014, passed by the learned I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases-r:r-rm-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'lhe trial CourtJ in C.C.No.21 of 2Oll, whereby the leamed Judge fou:nd the accused persons not guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(IXd) read q.ith Section 13 (2) of the Prevention cf Corn:ption Act, 1988 (for short, the ?.C. Act, 1988J.

2. The appellant herein is the complainant and re:spondent herein is the accused before the trial Court. For the sak: of convenience, hereinafter parties are referred to as the complzdnant and the accused.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: The accused ollicer (AO) worked as Village lRevenue Offrcer (VRO) of Mudwin village in Amangal Mandal of Mahabr:bnagar District from 07.O2.2OO7 to 14.10.2009. The de-fado complainant Sri Syed Mubasheer (hereinafter referred as PW.1) purchased t\c.3.00 gunts of land in Sy.Nos. 348 and 349 of Mudwin village on l]re name of his brother Sri Syed Shameer (PW.4) under three regi:;tered sale deeds 2 vide document Nos.8828/2OO9, 882912009 and 8830/2009 dated

15.07.2009 for the purpose of getting mutaLion on the name of PW.4 and on 13.08.2009 due applications under Form No.VI-A format were submitted to the office of the Tahsildar of Amangal Mandal (Pw.s) and PW.s entrusted the work of holding enquiry and the submission of a report to the AO being the concerned VRO. Two or three months later, PW. 1 approached the AO at his offrce and requested him to expedite the work, on which, the AO demanded an amount of Rs.20,0O0/- to submit report and also for taking further course of action for effecting the mutation of land in the name of PW.4 and for the consequent issuance of pattadar pass books. PW. 1 expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount to tJle AO. Again on 1l.10.2009, PW. 1 approached the AO at his residence in Karmanghat and requested to expedite the work. AO finally agreed to receive the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- and asked PW.1 to pay the same and upon receipt of the same only AO would process tlre work. On 12.1O.2OO9 at about 03.OO p.m., PW.l lodged Ex.Pl report with PW.9-the then DSP, ACB, Hyderabad range against the AO.

4. Basing on the said complaint, on l4.lO.2OO9 at about 08.OO a.m., PW.9 registered Ex.P22 FIR in Crime No.17IACB-HR/20O9 against the AO for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and took up the investigation. Duiing the course of trap, PW. I alone proceeded to ,r /' 3 the oflice of the AO and the other members of the trap party followed him. At about 12.05 p.m., pW. 1 entered into tJle offrce of the AO. Since the AO u,as in the ofhce room of pW.S_the then Tahsildar, pW. 1 waited for some time. While coming out from the oflic:e room of pW.S and on seeing PW. 1, AO took him aside in the corndor of that office and received the amount with his right hand, counte:d ti.e currency notes with his both hands and kept the same in his lert side pocket of the shirt. PW.9 conducted the Sodium Carbonate sclution test over the fingers of both the hands of the AO, which yieldec yrcsitive results. PW.9-the then DSp, ACB, Hyderabad seized the tainted currency notes of Rs. l0,OO0/- from the possession of AO in the presence of mediators incorporating all the above facts in 2nd nre.diators report. PW.9 got prepared Ex.p8 rough sketch of the scent: of offence and arrested the AO and sent him for judicial custody.

5. On appearance of the AO before the trial Court, charges under Sections 7 and l3(1)(d) read with Section l3(2) of the p.C. Act were framed, read over and explained to tl,re accused, to w.rich he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the ac,rused persons, prosecution examined p.Ws.l to 9 and marked Exs.p. l ,:o p.22. None were examined on behalf of the defence and Ex.Dl to fr? were marked and exhibited M.Os. 1 to 8. 4

7. 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(1Xd) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act arraigned against him beyond reasonable doubt and under these circumstances, accused is entitled to seek a strong benefit of doubt in his favour. Hence, accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act and accordingly, he was acquitted under Section 24a$) of Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.

8. Heard Sri Nazeerudhin Khna, learned counsel representing Sri T.BaIa Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB and Sri A.Vishwanath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the record.

9. Sri Nazeerudhin Khan, Iearned counsel representing Sri T'BaIa Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the trial Cor:rt failed in appreciating the evidence available on record ald came to an erroneous conclusion that the appellant-State has not placed sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the / / .J.. ) offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1Xd) rrzLd with Section 13 (21 of the P.C. Act. Hence seeks to a-llow the present Criminal Appeal by setting aside the judgment dated. 28.02.2()14, passed in C.C.No.21 of 20 1 1 .

10. Sri A.Vishwanath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the trial Court, upon appreciattng the oral and documenta5r evidence available on record in right perspeclive passed the judgment and the interference of this Court ar- this stage is unwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present Cr:nrinal Appeal.

11. In tJle case on hand, there is no convincing eviderrce placed by the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused persons.

12. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is circumscribed by the timitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach rrade by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated b5. some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, rv,:rich could not have been possibly arrived at b5z 61y Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore, to be characterized as p()rverse. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidt:nce upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order cf acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the 6 accused is further strengthened by acquittal' The golden thread which runs through the 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 tJeeir innocence' the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted' 13'llMrinatDcsVs.StateofT-ripura,theApexCourtheldas under: "It is ctear tlnt in an oppeat against acqtittal in the obsence of peruersitg in the judgment and ord'er, intederene bg thi's Court its ertraordinary jurisdiction' i's not utarranted' Z.r.itirfi io*.u.i if tle appeol i.s heard bg on oppellate court' being the j*ot .ou;t'o1 \od" is fullg competent to re- appreciate' reansider and- reueut the euidence and take its oun decision' In other u-tords' laut d.oes not prescibe ang limitation, restiction or condition on exercise of such pouer and' the appellate court is free to arriue at its oun .on"1u"ion keeping in mind tlnt acqtittal prouides for presumption in fauour of the accused' TIE pre.sumption of 'inonin i.s auaiiable to the person and in ciminal jurbprudene '"-*ry p.r"on is presum.ed to be innocent unless he is proued guilty ig i* *"rp.*t aurt. If tuo reo'sonable uietas are possible on ti-re arrti" oj tto .uid.,,o on record', the appellate court stauld not di.sturb the findings of aqttittal' Tlere b tto limitation on the port of tle appeilate @urt to reuieu the euidenre upon rtlhich the order is found and to corne to its otDn anclusion' The court con also reuieut tle condusion arriued at bg the tial Court with respect to both facts and' lanu' While dealing uith "piti"* -ti opp"ot against aquittal prefened bg the *ate' it is the dutg of the o4tpellate @urt to marslut tle entire euidene on reard and ontg- ig giuing cogent and adequate reosotls set aside the iig*"*21 oqrrittot' An order of aqrtifral i-s to be interfered uith 'orig -h"i there are "ampelting and substantial reasotts" for ioing to. If ttae order is "cleorlg unreosonnble"' it is a compelting ,.r"i" t"i interference' wnei tne trial Court ho's ignore! the "-,rt*t ' (zot t) g scc azg 7 euidence or misread the mateiol euidence or lu-s ignorec[ mateial documents like dging declaration/ report of ballbtic e.Yperts etc., tlrc appellate court is cornpetent to reuerse tle decision of the trial Court dependin4 on the materials placed." l*. ln Maloth SomaraJu Vs. Stcte of Andhra Prade.sh2 the Apex Court held that there can be no two opinions that merely because the acquittal is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate C:rrrt has more and serious responsibility while dealing with the judgme nt 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 callllot be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as to whether the trial Court, while upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care.

15. As the prosecution failed to establish the 5;uilt of the respondent/accused, in view of the Judgments referrec. lo above and taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am ol lJle view that there are no merits in the appeal and the same ir; liatile to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 28.02.2014, passed by the learned I Additionai Special J_udge ' (2ol l) 8 scc 635 8 forSPEandACBcases-cum-VAdditionalChiefJudge,CityCivil Court, Hyderabad in C.C'No.2l of 2Oll' Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed' SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL E UTY REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The 1't Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-Cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Ohe CC to Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy(SC FOR ACB SPL PP TS) Advocate loPUcl

4. One CC to Sri A.Viswanath Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1010712025 I a .1. ,/, . c 'i 25 ttl 2ffi \ \.: v ia il :t JUDGEMENT CRLA.No.793 of 2014 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL