The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal against acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It held that the trial court properly appreciated the evidence and that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The acquittal appeal was dismissed at the motion stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No. 166 of 2015State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Special Police Establishment, Office Of The Lok Ayukt, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar Chhattisgarh. ---- AppellantVersus
R. S. Pandey S/o S/o Tirayi Ram Pandey, Aged About 76 Years Retired Sub Engineer, R/o. Vikas Nagar, Kondagaon, Police Station Kondagaon, DistrictKondagaon Chhattisgarh.---- Respondent
For Appellant/State : Mr. Ali Asgar, Dy. A.G.
For Respondent : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Order on Board
20.07.2022
Heard on admission.Learned State counsel would submit that learned Special Judge has absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondent herein from the charges under Section 13 (1)( bZ ) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by recording a finding which is perverse to the record and deserves to be set-aside by admitting the acquittal appeal. It is further submitted that prosecution has proved his case by credible evidence but the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent without considering the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective, so, the impugned judgment is liable to2
be set-aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned trail Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charges on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the acquittal appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.This acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (Under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Dantewada, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) in Special Case No. 08/2003 whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the aforesaid charges.As per prosecution case, respondent was initially appointed as Sub-Overseer in the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department on 23.06.1961. Thereafter, from 01.09.1977 to 31.10.1997, he was posted as Sub Engineer in Bastar District and retired from the said post. During this period he acquired disproportionate assets of Rs. 7,25,620/- (Seven Lac, Twenty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Rupees). Prosecution has examined as many as 55 witnesses in his support and exhibited more than3
300 documents. Respondent also examined 10
witnesses in his defence. Learned trial Court
minutely appreciated all the oral and documentary
evidence and finds that, during investigation,
income of three sons of respondent was also
included in the assets of respondent. Learned trial
Court also finds that during investigation sons of
respondent namely Rajesh, Sankalp and Umesh were
married and the goods received from their in-laws
are also included in the assets of respondent.
Learned trial Court finds in para 126 that :
vkjksih ds vk; esa jkts'k ds fookg ds nkSjku izkIr tsojkrksa rFkk mlds iq=x.k }kjk vftZr fd;s x;s laifRr dh Hkh fooj.k iFkd fd;k tkuk FkkA vkjksih ds iq=ksa }kjk vftZRk fd;s tkus laifRr dks iFkd dj vkjksih ds vuqikrghu laifRr ds ewY; esa ?kVk;k tkuk t#jh FkkA
In this case, prosecution has failed to prove the
individual assets of the respondent and learned
trial Court rightly finds that prosecution has
failed to prove its case against respondent.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Murlidhar alias Gidda & Another Vs. State of Karnataka passed in (2014) 5 SCC 730 held in paras 11 & 12 as under:-11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal
Singh3 while dealing with the powers of the High
Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section
417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed: (AIR
3 Surajpal Singh V. State, AIR 1952 SC 52: 1952 Cri LJ 331
4
p.54, para 7)
“7... the High Court has full power to review the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal was
founded, but it is equally well settled that the
presumption of innocence of the accused is
further reinforced by his acquittal by the trail
court, and the findings of the trial court which
had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and
hearing their evidence can be reversed only for
very substantial and compelling reasons.”
12.Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:-(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court;(ii)The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal;(iii)Thought, the powers of the appellate court in
considering the appeals against acquittal are as
extensive as its powers in appeals against
convictions but the appellate court is generally
loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by
the trial court. It is so because the trial court
had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the
witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable
view of the facts of the case, interference by the
appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is
not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by
the trial court are palpably wrong or based on
erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions
are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in
grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the
appellate court in interfering with such
conclusions is fully justified; and
5
(iv)Merely because the appellate court on re-
appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is
inclined to take a different view, interference
with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if
the view taken by the trial court is a possible
view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence
must not result in the interference by the
appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.
The findings recorded by learned Special Judge acquitting the respondent from the offence punishable under Section 13(1)( bZ ) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is based on material available on record. This Court finds no illegality in theorderimpugnedacquittingtherespondent
particularly, when there is a settled legal
position that if two views are possible, the
appellate court should not interfere with the
judgment of acquittal, even otherwise, the
prosecution wrongly calculated the income of
respondent, thus has utterly failed in proving its
case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court
has fully justified in recording the finding of
acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of
evidence available on record.
Accordingly, the acquittal appeal is dismissed at motion stage itself.Sd/(Rajani Dubey) Judge
V/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act should be set aside by the High Court on appeal.
Whether the trial court properly appreciated the evidence to discharge the prosecution of its burden of proof.
Whether the appellate court should interfere with a finding of acquittal when the evidence is evenly balanced.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Murlidhar alias Gidda & Another Vs. State of KarnatakaExplained¶24
Murlidhar alias Gidda & Another Vs. State of Karnataka (2014) 5 SCC 730 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Special Police Establishment, Office Of The Lok Ayukt, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar Chhattisgarh
R. S. Pandey
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court