Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of A.P., Rep. By Inspector Of ... vs Sri E.Venkateswara Rao on 14 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.622 OF 2007
Between:
State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Prakasam District, Ongole.
(Through the Standing Counsel-cum-Spl. Public
Prosecutor for ACB Cases).
.... Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
E. Venkateswara Rao, Formerly Sr. Assistant,
O/o Mandal Revenue Officer, Jarugumalli,
Prakasam District.
... Respondent/Accused Officer.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 14.12.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
Fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
___________________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
2
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.622 OF 2007
% 14.12.2023
# Between:
State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Prakasam District, Ongole.
(Through the Standing Counsel-cum-Spl. Public
Prosecutor for ACB Cases).
.... Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
E. Venkateswara Rao, Formerly Sr. Assistant,
O/o Mandal Revenue Officer, Jarugumalli,
Prakasam District.
... Respondent/Accused Officer.
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri S.M. Subhani.
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri A. Hari Prasad Reddy.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2021 (1) Supreme 609
This Court made the following:
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.622 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
-
Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is made by the State,
represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau
("A.C.B." for short), Prakasam District, Ongole, to the judgment,
dated 25.01.2007 in C.C.No.19 of 2001, on the file of Special
Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore ("Special Judge" for short)
whereunder the learned Special Judge found the Accused Officer
("A.O." for short) not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ("P.C.
Act" for short) and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short).
2) The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter
be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for
the sake of convenience.
3) The State, represented by the Inspector of Police,
A.C.B., Prakasam District, Ongole, laid a charge sheet pertaining
to Crime No.9/ACB-NPK/2000 of A.C.B., Nellore Range, alleging
in substance as follows:
(a) Edara Venakteswara Rao (A.O.) worked as Senior
Assistant in the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Jarugumalli
from 18.02.1999 to 01.09.2000 and he is a public servant within
the meaning of Section 2(c) of P.C. Act. L.W.1-Mallavarapu
Brahma Reddy is resident of Jayavaram Village, Tangutur
Mandal, Prakasam District, who presented a report against A.O.
One Mallavarapu Venakta Subba Reddy (L.W.6), father of
Mallavarapu Brahma Reddy (L.W.1) owns an extent of Ac.5-75
cents of dry land in Paletipadu Village, Jarugumalli Mandal. In
the month of December, 1999, their family members partitioned
the land under registered deeds and they got their respective
extents. Accordingly, on 04.02.2000 L.W.1 and L.W.6-
Mallavarapu Venakta Subba Reddy, L.W.7-Mallavarapu Ramana
Reddy and L.W.8-Mallavarapu Jayarami Reddy submitted a joint
representation to M.R.O., Jarugumalli for issuance of pattadar
passbooks and title deeds in respect of the lands. The M.R.O.,
Jarugumalli after giving notice to them conducted necessary
enquiry with the help of V.A.O. Ultimately, recommendations
were made in issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds on
31.05.2000. L.W.1 approached A.O. several times and
requested him for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title
deeds. He used to postpone the same on some pretext or the
other. On 11.08.2000 at about 11-00 am., when he approached
A.O. at his office, A.O. demanded Rs.1,200/- as illegal
gratification to issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds. He
asked him to pay the amount within two or three days and
unless that amount was paid, their request cannot be
considered. Therefore, L.W.1 who had no intention to pay the
bribe, approached L.W.13-Inspector of Police, ACB on
11.08.2000 evening and presented a report. L.W.13 caused
preliminary enquiries into the report and accordingly DSP, ACB,
Nellore, registered the report as a case in Crime No.9/ACB-
NPK/2000. The D.S.P. conducted pre-trap proceedings on
14.08.2000 in the office of Inspector of ACB, Ongole between
9-00 a.m. and 10-00 a.m., in the presence of mediators. Later,
all of them proceeded to M.R.O. office, Jarugumalli at about 11-
00 a.m. on 14.08.2000. L.W.1 approached the A.O. and
enquired about their work. A.O. told him that passbooks and
title deed books are ready for signatures of M.R.O. and asked
him as to whether he brought the demanded bribe. L.W.1
replied in positive. On further demand, L.W.1 paid the tainted
amount to A.O. A.O. received the same with his left hand and
kept it in the left pocket of shirt. Then A.O. took out patadar
passbooks and title deed books belong to them from Almarah
and signed on the books and took them to MRO and obtained his
signatures. Then L.W.1 came out from the office and relayed a
pre-arranged signal. The D.S.P. and other trap party rushed to
the MRO office and conducted post-trap proceedings. The
chemical test that was conducted to the left hand fingers of A.O.
yielded positive result and the tainted currency notes of
Rs.1,200/- was recovered from his possession. The inner linings
of the shirt pocket of A.O. also yielded positive result. The
D.S.P. seized pattadar passbooks and title deeds and other
relevant documents from M.R.O's office.
(b) The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide
G.O.Ms.No.442, Revenue (VIG-II) Department, dated
03.07.2001 accorded sanction to prosecute the A.O. Hence, the
case.
4) The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the
case under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. The
learned Special Judge on appearance of A.O. and on compliance
of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framed charges under Sections 7 and
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act against A.O. and explained the
same to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5) In order to establish the guilt against A.O., the
prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.25 and M.O.1 to M.O.7. After closure of the evidence of
prosecution, A.O. was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in
the evidence let in for which he denied the same. He filed his
written statement putting forth his defence. In furtherance of
the defence, he examined D.W.1 to D.W.4 and got marked
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3.
6) The learned Special Judge on hearing both sides and
on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found
A.O. not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and accordingly acquitted him under Section
248(1) of Cr.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the judgment of acquittal,
the unsuccessful State filed the present Criminal Appeal.
7) Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points
that arise for consideration are as follows:
(1) Whether the prosecution proved that A.O. was a public
servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of P.C. Act and
that prosecution obtained a valid sanction in terms of
Section 19 of the P.C. Act so as to prosecute A.O. for the
charges leveled against him?
(2) Whether the prosecution proved the chargers beyond
reasonable doubt that A.O. demanded for bribe of
Rs.1,200/- prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap
and pursuant thereto accepted bribe amount which also
amounts criminal misconduct within the meaning of
Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act?
(3) Whether the judgment, dated 25.01.2007 in C.C.No.19
of 2001 is sustainable under law and facts and whether
there are any grounds to interfere with the same?
Point No.1:-
8) A perusal of the evidence of P.W.7 coupled with the
sanction order under Ex.P.25 means that the sanctioning
authority having regard to the allegations of the prosecution
accorded sanction to prosecute the A.O. Ex.P.25 shows the
application of the mind by the sanctioning authority. The learned
Special Judge found favour with the case of the prosecution in
this regard. During the course of hearing of the appeal, this
finding of fact is not sought to be disturbed on behalf of the
respondent/A.O. Having regard to the above, I am of the
considered view that the prosecution proved that A.O. was a
public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act
and further a valid sanction to prosecute the A.O. for the
charges leveled against him.
Point Nos.2 and 3:-
9) Sri S.M. Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB
and Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant/State,
would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 is in accordance with
the report lodged by him under Ex.P.7 and further reflecting in
accordance with the post-trap proceedings. He supported the
case of the prosecution. The evidence on record proves the
pendency of the official favour. Pendency of the official favour
was spoken to by the witnesses examined on behalf of the
prosecution. The tainted amount was recovered from the
possession of A.O. On account of certain discrepancies as to
whether the file reached to A.O. on 11.08.2000 or not and on
14.08.2000 whether V.A.O. brought pattadar passbooks and
title deeds or A.O. brought them, the learned Special Judge with
erroneous reasons disbelieved the case of the prosecution.
When the amount was recovered from the physical possession of
A.O. and further when P.W.1 supported the case of the
prosecution fully, the prosecution had a benefit of presumption
under Section 20 of the P.C. Act and the A.O. failed to prove
contrary. The A.O. raised defence that P.W.1 thrust the amount
into his left side trouser pocket. This thrusting theory is not at
all believable. The A.O. claimed that he was a physically
handicapped. The defence set forth by A.O. during cross
examination is not at all tenable. The A.O. deliberately in the
post-trap proceedings put forth the theory that P.W.1 thrust the
wad of currency notes into his left side shirt pocket. This theory
is not believable. The evidence on record proves the guilt
against the A.O., as such, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
10) Sri A. Hari Prasad Reddy, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent, would contend that it is bounden duty of the
prosecution to prove the pendency of the official favour in the
manner as alleged. According to Ex.P.1 and the evidence of
P.W.1, A.O. was dodging the issue for about 2 months and
ultimately demanded bribe of Rs.1,200/- on 11.08.2000. The
evidence on record proves that by 11.08.2000 A.O. was not in
the custody of the passbooks. On the other hand, on account of
the action initiative taken by the A.O. in June, 2000 itself, M.R.o.
issued the proceedings recommending passbooks in favour of
P.W.1 and his family members, but even according to MRO who
was examined as P.W.4, as V.A.O. made certain mistakes in
preparing the entries, he asked him to rectify and also directed
the V.A.O. to get the verification done by A.O. The A.O. was
entrusted with the above work off the record. There was
Superintendent who was bound to make initials in the
passbooks. Apart from this, according to the evidence of P.W.4,
V.A.O. brought the passbooks to him on the date of trap of A.O.
So, virtually the prosecution failed to prove the pendency of the
official favour in the manner as claimed by them. A.O. was a
physically handicapped person. If the case of the prosecution
that A.O. after obtaining signatures of P.W.1 after making
initials went into the MRO room so as to get the signatures is
accepted, A.O. should have been in the MRO room by the time
of trap party rushed there. There was a probability for presence
of Phenolphthalein powder on the passbooks as A.O. was alleged
to have dealt with passbooks and no chemical test was
conducted on the passbooks to prove that A.O. dealt with the
same. A.O. had set forth his defence in the earliest point of
time in the post-trap that complainant thrust the tainted amount
into his left side trouser pocket and within no time ACB caught
hold of him. According to the defence, A.O. was physically
handicapped who fell down when P.W.1 thrust the tainted
amount. The reasons for false implication were that there was
no good relation between the V.A.O. and A.O. P.W.1 admitted
that once V.A.O. and A.O cried against each other. The learned
Special Judge on thorough appreciation of evidence on record
rightly extended an order of acquittal. The learned counsel for
the respondent would rely upon a decision in N. Vijayakumar
vs. State of Tamil Nadu1 and contended that so long as view
of trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether
High Court agrees with same or not, verdict of trial court cannot
be interdicted and High Court cannot supplant over view of trial
Court. With the above said contentions, he seeks to dismiss the
appeal.
11) P.W.1 was the defacto-complainant, who presented
Ex.P.1. P.W.2 was the mediator for the pre-trap and post-trap
proceedings. P.W.3 was Superintendent in the office of M.R.O.,
Jarugumalli. P.W.4 was no other than the M.R.O. P.W.5 was
2021(1) Supreme 609
concerned V.A.O. P.W.6 was the Trap Laying Officer. P.W.7
was the Section Officer relating to prosecution sanction orders.
P.W.8 was the Inspector, ACB, who assisted the Trap Laying
Officer.
12) A.O. examined D.W.1, who was the owner of the
building to show that A.O. was of a person who was carrying
good reputation. He further examined D.W.2, D.W.3 and D.W.4
in support of his defence.
13) As seen from Ex.P.7, the substance of the
allegations against A.O. were that though there was a
recommendation to issue pattadar passbooks in favour of P.W.1
and his family members since about two months, A.O. was
dodging the issue and ultimately demanded bribe of Rs.1,200/-
so as to issue pattadar passbooks. This is the substance of
allegations in Ex.P.7.
14) P.W.1 in his chief examination deposed about the
factum of the lands in the name of his father and partition of the
said lands in his favour and other family members and further
their representation under Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. He spoke of about
the enquiry conducted by the revenue officials to issue pattadar
passbooks. He further spoke that V.A.O. recommended to
M.R.O. to issue pattadar passbooks. Then he came to know that
file was entrusted to A.O. He approached A.O. for 20 times and
requested for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds.
The A.O. has to put his side initial in the pattadar passbooks and
title deeds and to obtain the signatures of M.R.O. The A.O. used
to postpone the issue. On 11.08.2000 at 11-00 a.m., he
approached the A.O. at his office and made a request for
passbooks. He demanded bribe of Rs.1,200/- for issuance of
passbooks and bring the amount within two or three days. He
expressed his inability to do so. As he was not willing to do so,
he approached the ACB on 11.08.2000 and presented Ex.P.7
report.
15) He further spoke about events in the pre-trap. With
regard to post-trap events, his evidence is that on 14.08.2000
they proceeded to M.R.O. office, Jarugumalli. S.I. of Police,
ACB, followed him at some distance on his back. When he
approached A.O. and requested him to issue pattadar passbooks
and title deeds. A.O. asked him whether he brought the bribe
amount. Then he picked out the currency notes and gave the
same to A.O. A.O. received it with his left hand and kept in his
left side upper shirt pocket. After receipt of the amount, A.O.
took out four pattadar passbooks and four title deeds from
Almarah, put his side initials on all the books and went to M.R.O.
who is in another room to obtain the signatures. Then, he came
out and relayed pre-arranged signal. This is the substance of
evidence of P.W.1.
16) In the light of the above, firstly, I would like to deal
with as to whether the evidence on record would prove the
pendency of the official favour as on 11.08.2000 and
14.08.2000 in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.
During cross examination P.W.1 admitted that he took the
V.A.O. to M.R.O. whenever he visits office of M.R.O. V.A.O.
prepared Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6. V.A.O. told him that file was
sent to A.O. Out of 20 times four or five times he took the VAO
along with him to A.O. He deposed that in his presence A.O.
and the V.A.O. quarreled with each other in one occasion, but he
does not know the reason. He presented Ex.P.1 to M.R.O. on
04.02.2000. M.R.O. sent their application to the Superintendent
and Superintendent sent notice to them. Superintendent sent
the file to A.O. for preparing note file. It is true that V.A.O. sent
his recommendations on 31.05.2000 to M.R.O. Superintendent
sent the file to A.O. after receipt of recommendations to prepare
note file. He does not whether A.O. put up note file on
12.06.2000 recommending for issuance of pattadar passbooks
and title deeds and M.R.O. issued proceedings on 13.06.2000
directing the V.A.O. to prepare passbooks and present before
him. He denied that he knows everything about the same and
he is suppressing it. He denied that on 11.08.2000 he went to
the M.R.O. Office along with V.A.O., met the M.R.O. at about 3-
00 p.m. He denied that M.R.O. verified their passbooks and title
deeds on 11.08.2000 and noticed entries were not tallied with
the proceedings and also noticed that V.A.O. did not sign in the
passbooks and title deeds and did not make entries, as such,
instructed A.O. to verify the entries in the pass books after
V.A.O. brought them back. So, the defence of A.O. before P.W.1
was that on 13.06.2000 itself M.R.O. issued proceedings
recommending for issuance of passbooks and directed V.A.O. to
make necessary entries and to bring the passbooks and on
11.08.2000 when the V.A.O. brought the passbooks to him he
found some discrepancies and directed for its rectification and
directed V.A.O. to get it verified by A.O. This is the substance of
the decence of A.O. before P.W.1.
17) Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, the
Superintendent, he admitted about the issuance of proceedings
on 13.06.2000 basing on the preparation of office note made by
A.O. on the subject. The defence that was put forth before
P.W.1 that A.O. taken initiative for issuance of the proceedings,
dated 13.06.2000 had support from the evidence of P.W.3.
18) Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, the M.R.O., he
deposed that at about 9-00 a.m., on 14.08.2000 he came to the
office. At about 10-00 a.m., the file and record i.e., ROR
register, passbooks and title deeds four in number were placed
before him by V.A.O. He asked him to wait in due course. He
signed them at 11-00 a.m. He signed in Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.19.
The Attender taken back the file. He sent Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.19 to
the office Superintendent through the Attender. The Attender
brought back the record and placed on his table. The ACB
officials followed the Attender and informed him that there was
a trap occurred and he was asked not to move. He further spoke
about the enquiry conducted basing on Ex.P.1 and the report by
V.A.O. He admitted that on 13.06.2000 he issued Ex.P.10-D
proceedings. He marked copy to implement changes to V.A.O.
The proceedings were prepared by A.O. V.A.O. has to prepare
the passbooks and title deeds. The Senior Assistant and
Superintendent have to put their initials. The A.O. put his side
initial in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 with date on 14.08.2000. Ex.P.11 to
Ex.P.19 were processed through A.O. on 14.08.2000 and were
brought to his table.
19) It is to be noted that the very allegations in the case
of the prosecution that since two months prior to Ex.P.7, A.O.
was dodging the issue was not at all proved. On the other hand,
on 13.06.2000 basing on the note file made by A.O., M.R.O.
issued the proceedings to V.A.O. to prepare the passbooks and
title deeds. The specific evidence of P.W.4 is that at about 10-
00 a.m. on 14.08.2000 the entire file came before him by the
V.A.O. and he signed it at 11-00 a.m. His evidence further that
file was processed by A.O. and A.O. put his initials in Ex.P.11 to
Ex.P.19 does not mean that A.O. brought the file physically
before him. There was an office Superintendent who has
superintending authority over A.O. If the evidence of P.W.4 is
considered carefully, file reached before him at 10-00 a.m. on
14.08.2000 itself. Here the time of trap was after 11-00 a.m. It
is not the evidence of P.W.4 that after 11-00 a.m., A.O. brought
the file before him. All these circumstances goes to negative the
very case of the prosecution that on 14.08.2000 after 11-00
a.m., there was a demand for bribe and after payment of bribe
only, A.O. made initials.
20) It is to be noted that if the evidence of P.W.1 is
taken into consideration, the ACB trap party would have found
the presence of A.O. in the M.R.O. room. On the other hand,
the case of the prosecution is that A.O. was sitting leisurely in
his chair when the trap party rushed into the office. It is borne
out by the record that A.O. was physically handicapped person.
So, within no time, he would not have come out from the room
of M.R.O. There was no admission on the part of the M.R.O.
(P.W.4) that A.O. brought the file before him. Though the
prosecution at later point time got declared him as hostile but
P.W.4 did not say that A.O. physically brought the file after 11-
00 a.m. before him. The prosecution did not cross examine
P.W.4, though he specifically stated that at 11-00 a.m., V.A.O.
brought the passbooks and title deeds. It was only on account of
certain answers elicited by the learned defence counsel, the
prosecution sought to cross examine P.W.4. Nothing could be
elicited even during cross examination by the learned Special
Public Prosecutor that A.O. brought the file physically before him
on 14.08.2000.
21) It is to be noted that the very allegations of P.W.1 in
the evidence is that after accepting the bribe amount, A.O. kept
the amount through his left hand into the left side shirt pocket
and after that he dealt with the passbooks and title deeds and
put his initials and entered into the M.R.O. room so as to obtain
the signatures of M.R.O. This is has no support from the
evidence of P.W.4. Apart from this, according to the post-trap
version also P.W.1 was alleged to have told to D.S.P. about this
issue. So, there was a probability and possibility for contacting
of Phenolphthalein powder to the passbooks and title deeds from
the hands of A.O. To test this veracity of version of P.W.1, the
investigating officer did not choose to conduct chemical test to
the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. Had there been a
chemical test, there would have been an occasion for the
investigating officer to deal with as to whether A.O. physically
handled pattadar passbooks and title deeds. That was not done.
22) On the other hand, during cross examination of
P.W.1, A.O. got suggested to him that at 11-00 a.m., on that
day, he approached the A.O. and enquired about the passbooks
and title deeds and that A.O. replied that he verified the
pattadar passbooks and title deeds, put his initials on them and
forwarded to the M.R.O. and asked him to approach M.R.O. to
receive the same. He denied that he offered bunch of currency
notes to the A.O., as a formality and A.O. refused to receive the
same and that he suddenly thrust the said currency notes into
the shirt pocket of the A.O. by saying that it is only a formality
and A.O. suddenly tried to pick out the currency notes from his
shirt pocket with left hand in a hurry and fell on the ground as
he is a handicapped person affected with Polio to his legs and
that with great difficulty he stood up and in the meanwhile the
ACB people came and caught hold of the hand of A.O.
23) It is to be noted that the evidence of P.W.4 only
means that passbooks were processed by the A.O. with his
initials, etc. He did not testify that A.O. physically brought the
file to him. Apart from this, there was a spontaneous version by
A.O. during post-trap when he was questioned by D.S.P. that
P.W.1 thrust the currency notes into the left side shirt pocket of
A.O. and he tried to pick up the same and in the meantime ACB
people came. In my considered view, this version of A.O. was
not tested by the D.S.P. in a proper manner by conducting
chemical test to the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. These
are all the infirmities in the case of the prosecution which are
evident from the record. In view of the above reasons, this
Court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to
prove the pendency of the official favour in the manner as
alleged. The evidence of P.W.1 is not at all believable. There
was a categorical admission from P.W.1 that A.O. and V.A.O.
had in one occasion quarreled with each other. This part of
evidence shows that V.A.O. was accompanying P.W.1 all through
in most of times.
24) Though it is the evidence of P.W.4 in cross
examination that on noticing certain mistakes, he directed the
V.A.O. to rectify the mistakes, but the prosecution did not elicit
these facts from the mouth of P.W.5, the V.A.O. It was not
elicited from the mouth of P.W.4 that A.O. brought the file
relating to passbooks and title deeds before him at 11-00 a.m.,
on 14.08.2000. Having regard to the overall facts and
circumstances, I am of the considered view that it is unsafe to
believe the evidence let in by the prosecution.
25) It is to be noted that the prosecution should stand
at its own legs. Admittedly, the evidence of D.W.1 was of no
consequence to come to a conclusion that character of A.O. was
of good person. D.W.2 was the Attender in the M.R.O. Office
and A.O. examined him in tune with the defence relating to
14.08.2000. The evidence of D.W.3 is relating to the fact that he
came to know about the trap, etc. Even D.W.4 is not throwing
light as to the incident happened on 11.08.2000 but A.O.
examined him relating to certain procedural aspects. However,
the prosecution shall prove the case by standing at its own feet.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all
convincing. The learned Special Judge rightly disbelieved the
case of the prosecution. The learned Special Judge considered
the evidence of P.W.4 to negative the case of the prosecution.
26) In N. Vijayakumar's case (supra) dealing with the
judgment against an order of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court categorically held that only in cases where conclusion
recorded by the trial Court is not a possible view, then only High
Court can interfere and reverse acquittal to that of conviction. If
view taken by trial court is a possible view, High Court cannot
reverse acquittal to that of conviction. So long as view of trial
court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether High
Court agrees with same or not, verdict of trial court cannot be
interdicted and High Court cannot supplant over view of trial
Court.
27) In the light of the above, I do not find any tenable
reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The learned
Special Judge on thorough appreciation of the evidence on
record extended an order of acquittal. As it is an appeal against
an order acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot interfere unless
the judgment suffered with unreasonable findings. Hence, the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
28) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
29) The Registry is directed to forward the record along
with copy of the judgment to the trial Court, on or before
21.12.2023.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt. 14.12.2023.
PGR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRL. APPEAL NO.622 OF 2007
Note:
The Registry is directed to forward the record
along with copy of the judgment to the trial
Court, on or before 21.12.2023.
L.R. copy be marked.
Date: 14.12.2023
PGR
