In Anwar Ali v. State of H.P
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK CRLLP No.77 of 2011 In the matter of an application under Section 378(1) and (3) of Criminal Procedure Code. --------------------- State of Orissa …..… Petitioner Surendra Prasad Kar …..… Opp.party -Versus- For Petitioner : Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel (Vig.) For Opp.party : None ------------------ P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of hearing & judgment: 01.12.2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ M.S.SAHOO, J. The petition has been filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bolangir dated 07.04.2011 in CTR No.48/105 of 2006-07
Legal Reasoning
arising out of Sambalpur Vigilance P.S.Case No.45 of 2005. In the said proceeding, the sole opposite party faced trial for committing offences under Sections 409/468/471/477-A of the I.P.C. read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. // 2 // 2. The learned Standing Counsel strenuously argued referring to the grounds stated in the petition to submit, that due to the perversity in the judgment, the court should grant the leave to appeal. However, it is also fairly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that at this stage the scope of granting leave to appeal will be confined to the material already on record, i.e., the statement/deposition of P.Ws and other material objects that has been marked as exhibits before the learned trial court. 3. This Court has occasion to go through the judgment of the learned trial court dated 07.04.2011. In considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial court has gone to a great extent in analyzing all the evidence, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.10, 13 and 5 and materials on record. 4. In Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC 166 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 776 (at page 179 of SCC), the law on the appeal against acquittal and the scope and ambit of Section 378 CrPC and the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been held:- 14.1. In Babu [Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179] , this Court had reiterated the principles to be followed in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC. In paras 12 to 19, it is observed and held as under: (SCC pp. 196-99) “12. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to (Underlined to Supply Emphasis) Page 2 of 14 // 3 // to to take failed the appellate record contrary interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject-matter of scrutiny (Vide Balak by Ram v. State of U.P. [Balak Ram v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 219 : 1974 SCC (Cri) of 837] Bihar [Shambhoo Missir v. State of Bihar, (1990) 4 SCC 17 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 518] , Shailendra of U.P. [Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P., (2003) 1 SCC 761 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 432] , Narendra of M.P. [Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1893] , Budh of U.P. [Budh Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 9 SCC 731 : , State of (2006) 3 SCC U.P. v. Ram of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 102 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 363] , S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy [S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy, (2008) 5 SCC 535 (Cri) 645] , Arulveluv. State [Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 288] , Shambhoo Missir v. State (2008) 2 SCC Pratap v. State Singh v. State Singh v. State Singh [State (Cri) 377] court. Veer : (Underlined to Supply Emphasis) Page 3 of 14 // 4 //