State Of Karnataka vs Baburao S/O Shankerappa
2022 Latest Caselaw 144 Kant

                         1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200110/2015


BETWEEN

STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR (LOKAYUKTA)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
                                       ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    BABURAO S/O SHANKEREAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, GRADE II LAND
      SURVEYOR, (NOW RETIRED)
      R/O:PLOT NO.6/36, RAMPUR COLONY
      (KUMBAR WADA) BIDAR DISTRICT

2.   NAGAIAH S/O VEERABHADRAIAH HIREMATH
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
     DRIVER OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
     KRISHNA BHAGYA JAL NIGAM LIMITED,
     N.L.B.C HUNASAGI,
     NEAR BUS STAND, NARAYANPUR
     SURPUR TALUK, GULBARGA DISTRICT
                                    ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI YASHWANT YATNOOR, ADVOCATE)
                                2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 16.07.2015 PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE
(LOKAYUKTA) NO.7/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS
JUDGE AT YADGIRI, WHEREBY ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13(1) (D) AND 13(2) OF THE P.C.ACT
AND SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONCIT AND SENTENCE THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES WHICH
THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGE SHEETED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment

of acquittal passed in Special Case (Lokayukta) No.7/2010

on the file of Special Judge, Yadgiri.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under::

Upon a complaint lodged by Sri Kenchappa Harijan,

the Lokayukta police registered a case in Crime No.3/2007

on 06.06.2007. In the complaint, it is contended that the

complainant - Kenchappa and his uncle by name

Hanumantappa Harijan have entered into an agreement to

purchase a land bearing Survey No.106 with one Ningappa

Konchi and since the land was coming under the common

area and in order to execute a registered sale deed,

necessity was there to obtain no objection certificate from

the Superintendent Engineer, Narayanpur. Accused No.1

was in-charge of processing of application seeking issuance

of no objection certificate. In that regard, the complainant

and his uncle approached accused No.1 - Baburao on

number of occasions, but, the processing of the application

was postponed by accused No.1 on one pretext or the

other. Despite furnishing all required documents, accused

No.1 postponed the issuance of no objection certificate and

ultimately made a demand for bribe of Rs.5,000/-. Since

the complainant was not agreeable to pay the bribe

amount, he approached the Lokayukta police. On

05.06.2007, he again approached accused No.1 over

telephone and settled the bribe amount in a sum of

Rs.4,000/- and out of the said amount, the complainant

would pay Rs.2,000/- and his uncle would pay Rs.2,000/-.

Based on the said assurance, the complainant and his

uncle approached accused No.1 in his office in the

afternoon on 06.06.2007. The Lokayukta police after

being convinced about the genuineness of the complaint

averments, arranged for a trap. On 06.06.2007, when the

complainant and his uncle approached the office of

accused No.1, the complainant gave currency notes of five

hundred denomination to PW.8 - S.Maheshwarappa, who

was working as a Police Inspector in Karnataka Lokayukta

Police and the said notes were smeared with

phenolphthalein powder. Thereafterwards, the same was

handed over to the complainant.

4. The trap was successful and amount was

recovered from the hands of the accused.

Thereafterwards, the Lokayukta police arrested the

accused and investigated the matter and laid a charge

sheet against the accused.

5. Accused No.2 having supported the action of

accused No.1, he was also arrested and charge sheet came

to be filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. The presence of

the accused persons was secured and following charges

were framed against them:

"That you accused No.1 being public servant working as Grade II Land Surveyor in the Office of Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd., Sub-division, Hunasagi demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from complainant - Sri Kenchappa to show official favour in the matter of issuing permission letter to purchase land in Sy.No.106 of Yadahalli village, and on 06.06.2007 at about 1.30 p.m. at KBJNL, Sub-Division Office, Hunasagi, you accused No.1 demanded Rs.2,000/- and asked the complainant - Sri Kenchappa to give said amount to you accused No.2 and you accused No.2 being a public servant working as driver in the said office received said illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant - Sri Kenchappa and thereafter you both shared the said amount equally and thereby both of you committed an office punishable

under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and with the cognizance of this Court.

That you accused Nos.1 and 2 committed offence of criminal misconduct by accepting or obtaining illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from complainant Sri Knchappa in the matter of issuing permission letter to purchase land bearing Sy.No.106 of Yadahalli village and thereby both of you have committed offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the cognizance of this Court.

And I hereby direct that you be tried this Court of the said charges."

6. Since the accused persons denied the charges,

trial was held against the accused persons. In order to

prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined

eight witnesses have been examined as PWs.1 to 8

comprising of complainant as PW.1 and shadow witness as

PW.2. The prosecution relied on 34 documents, which

were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P34. Currency

notes of fine hundred denomination each were marked as

MOs.1 and 2 and other material objects were marked as

MOs.3 to 15.

7. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the

accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the

incriminatory materials. But, they did not chose to place

their version on record either examining themselves or by

filing written submission as is contemplated under Section

313(5) of Cr.P.C. However, they filed a memo with two

documents comprising of the certified copy of the

judgment in O.S.No.314/2004.

8. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge heard

the parties in detail and passed an order of acquittal,

acquitting the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the

same, the State - Lokayukta is in appeal.

9. In the appeal, following grounds have been

raised.

"That the Trial Court has without proper appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record by the prosecution has proceed to pass the judgment and order acquitting the accused/respondent for the offences he has been charge sheeted, hence the same is liable to be set aside.

That, the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge while passing the order of acquittal of the charged offence are not justifiable and unsustainable in the eye of law.

That, the prosecution has examined in al 8 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-8 and got marked Ex P-1 to P- 34(a). All the 8 witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution except the complainant PW-1 in the cross examination has denied the facts of demand after some days, during that period he has been won over by the accused. The prosecution has proved that there is demand of Rs.4,000/- and acceptance of RS.2000/- by the accused, which is also corroborated by other witnesses but the Special Court has not considered these aspects and wrongly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused persons only for minor contradictions.

That, admittedly the prosecution has established the demand of bribe, acceptance and subsequently recovery of the amount from the accused. Hence, the prosecution has established the offences against the accused punishable under section 7, 13(1) (d) R/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

That, in support of the case, PW-1 who is the complainant has deposed before the court regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused and has supported the case of the prosecution. PW-2 who is a shadow witness has fully corroborated the prosecution case and thereby proved the pre-trap panchanama as well as colour testing and conducting of entrustment mahazar and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

That, apart from PW-1 8 2, PW-5 who is the Director 13 KBJNL, and he is the competent authority who issued prosecution sanction order has fully supported the case of the prosecution.

That, PW-6 who is the Senior officer of the Accused has deposed regarding the pendency of work of the complainant, this relevant factors in the case have not been properly appreciated by the Hon'ble Trail Court.

That, PW-7 who is the pancha has deposed regarding the pre-trap and post trap panchanama and has fully supported the case of the prosecution.

PW-8 is the IO who has conducted the investigation 16 in the case and has deposed in length about the investigation and also deposed in length about the investigation and also deposed regarding recording of statements of the witnesses, the receipt of the chemical report, prosecution sanctions and filing of the charge sheet.

That, the learned Special Judge has given much importance for minor discrepancies. The prosecution has established the guilt of both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt by adducing oral and documentary evidence and proved the ingredients of the alleged Offences in the charge sheet. The accused has been won Over by the accused.

That, the learned Session Judge has ignored the provisions of Section 20 which gives the presumption of acceptance of gratification. Except the denial of the allegations made against the accused persons they nave not rebutted the case of prosecution and the accused persons have not adduced any defense evidence and no motive is attributed against, hence the Judgment and order of acquittal holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused persons is illegal, improper and against the established principals of law and procedure and hence the same is liable to be set aside in view of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in case of Krishna Ram V/s The State of Rajasthan, M. Narsingh

Rao V/s The State of Andhra Pradesh and in case of Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi V/s The State of Maharashtra.

That, viewed from any angle the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trail court is not only illegal, but also perverse; hence interference of this Hon'ble Court is sought for.

That, some more grounds in support of the above grounds would be urged at the time of arguments."

10. Reiterating the above grounds, the learned

counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the

Trial Court has not property appreciated the material

evidence on record and wrongly passed an order of

acquittal resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for

allowing the appeal.

11. He further contended that even though the

complainant has turned hostile to the case of the

prosecution, the case of the prosecution is well supported

by the oral testimony of the shadow witness did not

nurture any previous enmity or animosity against the

complainant to depose falsely and seizure of the currency

notes from the custody of the accused No.2, who has

received on behalf of accused No.1 clearly establishes all

ingredients to attract the offence alleged against the

accused persons, which has been not property appreciated

by the Trial Court and sought for allowing the appeal. He

also pointed out that the mere fact of filing the memo by

the accused that on account of previous enmity a false

case has been foisted against the accused persons by the

prosecution having not been established by placing

necessary materials, the trial Court ought not to have

acquitted the accused and sought for allowing the appeal.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondents/accused Sri Yashwant Yatnoor supported the

impugned judgment by contending that the tainted money

is not recovered from the hands of the first accused and

there no relationship between the accused Nos.1 and 2

and the prosecution has failed to prove all ingredients to

attract the offences, inasmuch as, the complainant has

turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the

prosecution did not choose to examine CW.6, who is the

uncle of PW.1/complainant and whose work also pending

with the accused No.1 and therefore, the trial Court was

justified in recording an order of acquittal and sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

13. In view of the rival contentions made by the

learned counsel for the parties, the following points would

arise for consideration.

1. Whether the appellant is successful in establishing the case that the accused persons had extraneous consideration accepted a sum of `5,000/- as bribe in their house on 06.06.2007 at about 8.30 a.m. from the hands of the complainant in order to execute the registered sale deed and issuance of no objection certificate by the Superintendent Engineer, Narayanpur?

2. Whether the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that prosecution has failed to prove all ingredient to attract the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is suffering from legal infirmities and perversity and thus calls from interference ?

3. What order ?

14. In the case on hand, in order to prove the case

of the prosecution, eight witnesses have been examined.

Amongst them, complainant is PW.1. He did not support

the case of the prosecution except stating that he has

acquainted with the accused and other witnesses. He

deposed before the Court only to the extent of the

acquaintance of the accused and the demand said to have

been made by accused for illegal gratification.

Thereafterwards, he did not support the case of the

prosecution in respect of the trap. Therefore, he has been

treated as hostile witness by the learned Special Public

Prosecutor and cross examined him in detail by confronting

the contents of the trap mahazar. In such cross

examination, the prosecution is unable to elicit any useful

materials to prove the case of the prosecution. To the

extent he supported the case of the prosecution, the

defence also examined PW.1.

15. In such cross examination, it is elicited that he

is not knowing what is the meaning of no objection

certificate. He also admits that Madarsab, who is

examined as PW.3 is the only person who is literate in his

village and who knows the rules and regulations. He also

admits that said Madarsab is working as a liaisoning agent

and he has done many works in the Government Offices of

the villagers. He also admits that he had not visited the

office of the Lokayukta, but, it is only PW.3, who has

visited the Lokayukta office. He also admits that Madarsab

had a enmity with the accused and therefore, a false case

has been foisted against the accused persons by using

him.

16. PW.2 is the shadow witness, who supported

the case of the prosecution in entirety, who worked as a

SDA in Taluka Panchayat, Shahapur. PW.3 - Madarsab,

who has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

Petitioner. Other witnesses are formal witnesses and

investigation officer.

17. The learned Trial Judge after appreciating the

material evidence on record in paragraph Nos.22 to 26 has

held as under:

           "22)          The     PW.6     M.D.    Sonboji,    the
     Executive      Engineer, K.B.J.N.L.,        Hunasagi     has

specifically spoken in his evidence with regard to the production of the documents of accused No.1 and so also the other documents i.e., Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.18 and so also Ex.P.25 to Ex.P.31 documents. But during the course of the cross-examination, the PW.6 has made it clear that in order to get the prior permission to sell the land, one must have to file an application before the Executive Engineer Office, Hunasagi and after receiving the said application, it will be entered in the inward register and inward number will be given to the said application. The land Sy.No.106 of this case was coming within the jurisdiction of Hunasagi office and the applications will be submitted to the Superintendent Engineer Office, Narayanapur. On receiving of the said application, the said office of Superintendent of Engineer, Narayanapur will give directions to the concerned surveyor in whose jurisdiction the land situated and the said surveyor will prepare the check list and will attend the work. The PW.6 has made it clear that

none of the documents produced by him i.e., Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.25 to Ex.P.31 do show the fact that the accused No.1 was entrusted to survey the land Sy.No.106. Unless and until some directions or instructions issued to the accused No.1, he was not having any jurisdiction to survey the land or to give any no- objection certificate. No documents are there to show the fact that the accused No.1 is the competent person to issue the no-objection certificate. The PW.6 has not spoken to the fact that the accused No.1 was having competency or jurisdiction or entrusted with authority to issue no-objection certificate. When there was no competency to do the work and issue no-objection certificate, the question of demanding and accepting of bribe by accused No.1 does not arise. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 has demanded the money saying that he has to give to the some other person who is having competency to issue no- objection certificate and therefore he requires money to pay the same and in the event of giving a bribe he can favour the PW.1. No-doubt Ex.P.8 application said to have been filed by PW.4 Ningappa and one Hanumanthappa i.e., CW.6 has been handed-over by PW.6 to PW.8. But the PW.6 has made it clear that the said Ex.P.8 does not bear the date on which the said application was

prepared and the said application was presented before the Superintendent Engineer, K.B.J.N.L., Narayanapur and on what date said application has been received by the said office. The said application also does not bear the inward number. The PW.8 S. Maheshwarappa the I.O. has also spoken to the fact of non-appearance of any date of filing and mentioning of the inward number on the said application. On perusal of the said Ex.P.8, it clearly shows that it does not bear the date of its preparation, date of presentation before the office of Superintendent Engineer, Narayanapur and also the date of receipt of the said application by the said office and so also does not show the fact of mentioning of the inward number. On careful perusal of the said Ex.P.8, it reveals the fact that the same has been filed by one Ningappa S/o Hanmappa Konchi and Mallappa S/o Bhumanna. In-front of their names two thumb impressions are appearing. No one have identified the said thumb impressions below to the said Ningappa and Mallappa and even the said thumb impressions do not show the fact as to whether the said thumb impressions pertains to left thumb or right thumb. The PW.4 Ningappa S/o Hanumappa Panchi has specifically spoken in his evidence that he has never approached the K.B.J.N.L. Office in seeking no- objection certificate. Because of the reason

that the said application Ex.P.8 does not bear the date and inward number of the office, it creates a serious doubt as to whether such an application was filed before the office of Superintendent Engineer, Narayanapur prior to the alleged trap. Even for a moment, for the sake of arguments, if it is taken in to consideration that such an application Ex.P.8 was filed by PW.4 and CW.6 before the Superintendent Engineer Office, Narayanapur, the same was not yet referred to the accused No.1 for survey the land Sy.No.106. There is no material on record to show that on the basis of the application filed by the said PW.4 and CW.6, a directions or instructions was issued to the accused No.1 to survey the land Sy.No.106 and to issue no-objection certificate. Therefore under these circumstances it can be very well said that no work of PW.1 or PW.4 or CW.6 was pending with accused No.1 in connection of issuance of no-objection certificate which requires for registration of the sale deed in-respect of land Sy.No.106 of Edehalli village belong to PW.4, the question of demanding and receiving the bribe amount from PW.1 to favour the PW.1 by accused No.1 does not arise. Apart from that the PW.1 Kenchappa has not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore I am inclined to hold that there was no demand or acceptance of the bribe by accused No.1 from PW.1.

23) In the decision submitted by the learned counsel appearing for accused, it has been held that where the complainant has turned hostile, in the absence of proving of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, the accused would be entitled to acquittal. Mere recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused Nos.1 and 2 that itself does not sufficient to prove the acceptance and demand of the bribe by the accused persons. The important fact to be considered is that as to whether the accused persons have demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant has to be looked in to. In the present case also, no-doubt, the PW.2 Ramesh Rathod the shadow witness, PW.7 Hanumanthappa the panch witness and PW.8 S. Maheshwarappa the I.O. have stated in their evidence with regard to the manner in which the trap has been conducted and tainted currency notes have been seized from the possession of the accused Nos.1 and 2. But their evidence is of no use when the complainant himself has not supported the case of prosecution.

24) Apart from that the evidence of PWs.2, 7 and 8 also creates a doubt in-respect of the fact as to whether they have gone to the office of the

accused No.1 and conducted the trap. The evidence of PW.2 shows that 17 - 18 chairs and tables were kept in the big hall for using them by officials. No publics were present. The accused No.1 and another official were working. The PW.7 Hanumanthappa one of the panch witness has stated in his evidence that 5 - 6 persons were sitting in the office and attending the work. Whereas the evidence of PW.8 shows that near about 20 to 25 percent chairs were kept in the office of accused No.1 so as to attend the work by the officials. The evidence of PWs.2, 7 and 8 is not consistent with regard to the fact of presence of the officials other than the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said office at the time of the alleged trap conducted by PW.8. The PW.8 has made it clear in his evidence that at the time when he conducted the trap and prepared the panchanama he felt to record the statements of the other officials who were actually working at that time. But he did not done so. The PW.8 could have recorded the statements of any other officials. If the PW.8 recorded the evidence of other officials in the office where the accused No.1 is working, then the real fact of conducting of trap in the office of accused No.1 could have come out. Non- examination of such other officials of accused No.1 will also creates a serious doubt as to whether such a trap has been conducted in the office of accused

No.1 as claimed by prosecution. Therefore on this ground also the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to benefit of doubt.

25) Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads thus;

20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause

(a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without

consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be Inadequate.

(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its

opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn.

On perusal of the section 20, it reveals the fact that only on the proof of the fact that the accused person has accepted the gratification other than the legal remuneration, then it shall presume that the said accused person has accepted the said gratification as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. But in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused No.1 has demanded the bribe from PW.1 and the PW.1 has paid the bribe to the hands of accused No.2 at the instance of accused No.1. In the decision submitted by the learned counsel appearing for accused persons, it has been held that because of the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was a demand and acceptance, the presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has not been raised in-favour of prosecution. In the present case also, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was a demand of gratification by accused No.1 and acceptance of the same by accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore the prosecution cannot avail the benefit of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the present case.

26) The accused No.2 is a driver. The PW.5 has made it clear in his evidence that generally the drivers were not having any work to attend inside the office. The accused No.1 was not the superior officer of the accused No.2. The accused No.2 has been involved in the present case only on the ground that the accused No.2 said to have received the gratification from PW.1 on the say of the accused No.1. It is already stated above that since there was no satisfactory evidence to prove the demand of gratification by accused No.1 and acceptance of the same by the accused Nos.1 and 2, the accused No.2 is also entitled to benefit of doubt."

18. After so appreciating the material evidence on

record, the learned Trial Judge has recorded an order of

acquittal. This Court being the Court of appeal, re-

appreciated the entire material evidence on record and

also the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Judge in

the impugned judgment.

19. It is pertinent to note that since the

complainant has not supported the case of the

prosecution, a serious dent has been caused to the case of

the prosecution.

20. No doubt, in a matter of this nature, the oral

testimony of the shadow witness assumes importance.

But, in the case on hand, based on the oral testimony of

the shadow witness alone, who has examined as PW.2,

cannot be relied upon in the absence of prosecution failing

to prove the demand of bribe amount and acceptance

thereof.

21. Moreover, accused No.2 is the driver, who said

to have received the money warned on behalf of accused

No.1. No proper proof is placed on record in this regard.

22. Non examination of uncle of PW.1, who is cited

as CW.6, who also said to have accompanied the

complainant is an important aspect while appreciating the

material evidence on record.

23. Further, it is elicited in the evidence of PW.6

that the accused No.1 was not the in- charge of processing

the no objection certificate, which is required for

registration of the sale deed. All these factors have been

properly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge.

24. It is settled principle of law that an order of

acquittal recorded by a duly competent Court reinforces

the innocence of the accused in a criminal trial.

25. It is also equally settled principle of law that in

a given case it two views are permissible, the appellate

Court is required to prefer the view, which is favourable to

the accused.

26. Applying the above settled principles of law to

the case on hand, this Court is of the considered opinion

that solely on the oral testimony of PW.2, this Court

cannot upset the finding recorded by the learned Trial

Judge. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered and

point No.3 is answered as under and following:

ORDER

The appeal sans merit and hereby dismissed.

Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.

SD/-

JUDGE

Srt