Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Gaurav Sharma S/O Suresh Chand And ... on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 278 of 2022
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Gaurav Sharma S/O Suresh Chand And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
(Order on Leave to Appeal Application)
Heard learned A.G.A. on leave to appeal application.
Submission of learned A.G.A. is that the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order are perverse and illegal. Prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Recovery was made from the room of accused-respondents and same is supported with independent evidence. Offence under Section 272 and 273 IPC and Section 60 of Excise Act are clearly made out against the accused-respondents. Recovery of wine is also supported with independent evidence. Although F.S.L. report was not in support of the prosecution case, yet liquor was being used and supplied/sold without having any licence. This fact has been proved by the prosecution from its evidence before the trial court beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, referring to the aforesaid facts and the findings arrived at by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order, a prayer is made to grant leave to appeal.
We have considered the submissions made by learned A.G.A. and have perused the entire record.
In this matter, from the perusal of the entire record, it is evident that no evidence was adduced on the part of the prosecution to attract the ingredients of offence under Sections 272 and 273 IPC. F.S.L. report was also not in support of the prosecution case. Thus, the finding of the trial court recorded in the impugned judgment and order for acquittal of the accused-respondents cannot be termed to be illegal or perverse.
Thus, keeping in view the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused-respondents, as noted by the trial court, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the trial court was a probable and logical view, which is based on valid reasons. The judgment of the trial court cannot be said to be illogical and improbable.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju Versus State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 SCC 315 has held as under :
"It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e. if the conclusion arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence."
In Gangabhavani Versus Rayapati Venkat Reddy and others, (2013) 15 SCC 298, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"This Court has persistently emphasised that there are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
Hence, the prayer for grant of leave to appeal is hereby refused and the application is rejected.
Since prayer for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive, consequently the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.5.2022
ML
