Bombay High CourtCentral Bureau Of Investigation vs Chandrappa Nagappa Kembhavi & Ors on 3 February, 2020Bench: K.R. Sriram1/14                      205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\n                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.228 OF 2001\n Central Bureau of Investigation                   )\n Anti Corruption Branch, 11-A, Tanna House,        )\n Nathalal Parekh Marg, Colaba, Mumbai 400          )\n 039 vide their R.C. No.39/96                      ) ....Appellant/Complainant\n                V/s.\n 1. Chandrappa Nagappa Kembhavi               )\n Aged about 55 years, permanently residing at )\n 76, Vasant Nagar, Vijapur Road, Solapur      )\n 2. The State of Maharashtra                       ) .....Respondent/Accused\n                                      ----\nMs. Shubhada D. Khot, APP for Appellant.\nMs. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for State - respondent no.2.\nMs. Ayushi Anandpara, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae.\n                                      ----\n                                      CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.DATE    : 3rd FEBRUARY 2020\nORAL JUDGMENT :\n\n1                  This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated5th September 2000 passed by the Special Judge, Solapur, acquitting\n\nrespondent (accused) of offences punishable underSection 7,Section 13(2)\n\nread withSection 13(1) (d) ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988(PC Act).\n\n\n2                  On 6th January 2020 since nobody was present in Court\n\nrepresenting respondent no.1, the Court appointed Ms. Ayushi Anandpara,\n\nan Advocate, as Amicus Curiae. Before I proceed with the case, I must\n\nexpress my appreciation for the distinguished assistance rendered by\n\nMs. Ayushi Anandpara, learned Amicus Curiae. The endeavour put forth by\n\nMs. Anandpara, Amicus Curiae, has been of immense value in rendering the\n\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020               ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::2/14                           205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\njudgment.3                 It is the case of prosecution that accused Chandrappa Nagappa\n\nKembhavi was working as a Sub-divisional Officer of Phones (external) in\n\nthe office of Telecom Department as District Manager, Solapur. Accused, on\n\n15th May 1996, demanded Rs.600/-, which was reduced to Rs.500/-, as\n\nillegal gratification other than regular remuneration for showing the favour\n\nto complainant (PW-1) Mehboobsab Pailwan, a vegetable merchant of\n\nSolapur for urgent and early installation of new telephone connection\n\nallotted to complainant in his shop premises bearing no.D-26, Siddheshwar\n\nMarket Yard, Solapur. Accused is alleged to have agreed to accept the\n\namount on 16th May 1996 in the shop of complainant at about 4.00 p.m.\n\n4                 The charge framed against accused reads as under :"That you in the month of May 1996, while functioning as the Sub-\n            Divisional Officer of Phones in the office of the Telecom District\n            Manager, Solapur and as such a public servant, demanded a sum of\n            Rs.600/- on 15-5-96 as a illegal gratification, other than regular\n            remuneration as a motive or reward for showing favour in exercise of\n            your official function to the complainant Shri Mahiboobsaheb\n            Sharifsaheb Pailwan, a vegetable merchant of Solapur to wit, for\n            expediting installation of new telephone connection allotted to the\n            said complainant Shri M.S. Pailwan at his shop premises situated at\n            Shop No.26, E, Sidheshwar Bhavan, Market yard, Solapur and\n            reduced the said amount to Rs.500/- and further agreed to accept the\n            said amount of Rs.500/- on 16-5-96, in complainant M.S. Pailwan's\n            said shop at about 4.00 p.m. However, on 16-5-1996 you did not visit\n            the shop of complainant Shri M.S. Pailwan at the appointed time for\n            accepting the agreed bribe amount. Thereafter on 17-5-96 in the\n            morning hours you contacted complainant M.S. Pailwan, on his\n            telephone at his residence, asking him to keep the agreed bribe\n            amount of Rs.500/- ready with him and told him that the said amount\n            would be collected by you from the shop of complainant on that day,\n            i.e., on 17-5-96 at about 11.00 A.M. to 11.30 A.M.And in pursuance of the aforesaid demand on 17-5-96 you actually\n            accepted the illegal gratification amount of Rs.500/- from the\n            complainant Shri M.S. Pailwan, and thereby committed an offence\n            punishable underSection 7of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020                      ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::3/14                            205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\n            and within my cognizance.That during the aforesaid period you being sub Divisional Officer of\n            phones in the office of the Telecom District Manager, Solapur, and as\n            such a public servant have obtained yourself, as a pecunary advantage\n            of Rs.500/- on 17-5-96 from complainant Shri M.S. Pailwan by\n            corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as a\n            public servant and thereby committed an offence punishable underSection 13(2) read withSection 13(1) (d) ofPrevention of\n            Corruption Act1988 and within my cognizance.And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the said charge.\n\n\n5                 I have reproduced the charge because it is the case of\n\ncomplainant that his application was to transfer an existing telephone\n\nconnection no.328344 from Gala No.D-26 to Gala No.67-E. It is not\n\ncomplainant's case that the application, which was pending, for which\n\naccused demanded money, was for a new connection at Gala No.67-E as\n\nmentioned in the chargesheet.6                 Prosecution arranged a trap on 16th May 1996 but the trap was\n\nunsuccessful as accused did not arrive at the time fixed. Thereafter, on\n\n17th May 1996 according to complainant accused gave him a call over\n\ntelephone at about 8.00 a.m. on the telephone at his residence (the evidence\n\ndo not indicate any telephone connection at the residence of complainant\n\nbecause complainant has all through said he has telephone connections only\n\nat Gala D-26, Gala 67-E and a shop near J-Shell hall). It is also not\n\ncomplainant's case that his residence was connected to one of the galas. It\n\nseems accused informed complainant that he would visit on 17 th May 1996 at\n\nabout 11.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. at which time complainant should pay the\n\nbribe amount of Rs.500/-. Prosecution has alleged that respondent\n\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020                        ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::4/14                     205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\ndemanded an amount of Rs.500/- on 17 th May 1996 and actually accepted\n\nthe same from PW-1 and thereby respondent has committed an offence\n\npunishable underSection 7of PC Act. It is prosecution's case that on the\n\nsame day, time and place, accused in the capacity being public servant had\n\nobtained an amount of Rs.500/- by way of pecuniary advantage by following\n\ncorrupt and illegal means and thereby committed offence punishable underSection 13(2) read withSection 13(1) (d) ofPC Act.\n\n7                 PW-6 - Mohamad Yunus Ismail Shaikh, Police Inspector, A.C.B.\n\nSolapur, investigated the matter and after obtaining necessary sanction, filed\n\nthis complaint. During the investigation, the house of accused was also\n\nsearched but nothing incriminating was found. Statement of complainant,\n\npanch witnesses and others were recorded and after obtaining a sanction\n\nagainst accused from respondent no.9, a complaint was filed and accused\n\nwas chargesheeted. Accused pleaded not guilty to any of the charges and\n\nclaimed to be tried.8                 To drive home its charge, prosecution led evidence of nine\n\nwitnesses, viz., Mehboob Mohammad Sharif Pahelwan, complainant as PW-1,\n\nDilip Savale, panch witness as PW-2, Ayub Makulsahab Kamtikar, brother-in-\n\nlaw of PW-1 as PW-3, Arun Shridhar Pathak, Assistant General Manager,\n\nPublic Relations, Telecom Department as PW-4, Chakradhar Ventrapragada\n\nNarayanrao, Division Engineer (Rural), Telecom Department, Solapur as\n\nPW-5, Mohamed Ismail Sheikh, Police Inspector, A.C.B., Solapur as PW-6,\n\nVinayak Shankarrao Suryavanshi, Police Inspector, C.B.I., Jodhpur as PW-7,\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020              ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::5/14                            205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\nBalasaheb Rangnath Sahani, Police Inspector, C.B.I. as PW-8 and Pradhan\n\nShambhu Saran, Member Services, Telecom Communication as PW-9.\n\n9                 Various documents were also exhibited. After recording\n\nevidence, the statement of accused underSection 313of the Code of\n\nCriminal Procedure was recorded and the stand of accused was of total\n\ndenial. After considering the evidence, the impugned judgment was passed\n\non various grounds.10                The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal V/s. State of U.P.             1\n                                                                                  has culled out\n\nthe factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an appeal\n\nagainst acquittal. Paragraphs 72 and 73 of the said judgment read as under :72. The following principles emerge from the cases above :1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against\n            acquittal underSection 378and386of the Criminal Procedure Code,\n            1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can\n            reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's\n            conclusion with respect to both facts and law.2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial\n            court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is\n            innocent.3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial\n            court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at\n            issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the\n            evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for\n            holding that trial court was wrong.73. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts\n            should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of\n            judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's\n            acquittal :1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial\n            court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for\n            doing so.1. (2008) 10 SCC 450\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020                         ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::6/14                             205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\n            A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have\n            "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's\n            decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when :i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of\n            justice";iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was\n            patently illegal;v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material\n            evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/\n            report of the Ballistic expert, etc.vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration\n            to the findings of the trial court.3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal,\n            the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in\n            favour of the accused.The Apex Court in many other judgments including Muralidhar\n\nand Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka 2 has held that unless, the conclusions\n\nreached by the Trial Court are found to be palpably wrong or based on\n\nerroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they\n\nare likely to result in grave injustice. Appellate Court should not interfere\n\nwith the conclusions of the Trial Court. Apex Court also held that merely\n\nbecause the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the\n\nevidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment\n\nof acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible\n\nview.2. 2014 (5) SCC 730\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020                             ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::7/14                         205.Apeal-228-2001.docWe must also keep in mind that there is a presumption of\n\ninnocence in favour of respondent and such presumption is strengthened by\n\nthe order of acquittal passed in his favour by the Trial Court.The Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi V/s. State of Gujarat                  3\n\n\n\nhas held that if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded that the\n\norder of acquittal cannot at all be sustained because Appellate Court finds\n\nthe order to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably\n\nunsustainable, Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its\n\nown conclusions. In other words, if Appellate Court finds that there was\n\nnothing wrong or manifestly erroneous with the order of the Trial Court, the\n\nAppeal Court need not even re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its own\n\nconclusions.11                 In so far as the offence underSection 7of PC Act is concerned, it\n\nis a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non\n\nto constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot\n\nconstitute the offence underSection 7unless it is proved beyond all\n\nreasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing\n\nit to be a bribe. This position has been well laid down in several judgments\n\nof the Apex Court and all other High Courts including Bombay High Court\n\n(B. Jayaraj V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh4 ).12                 I have perused the impugned judgment, considered the evidence\n\nand also heard Ms. Khot, learned APP and Ms. Anandpara, the Amicus3. 1996 SCC (Cri) 9724. 1996 SCC (Cri) 972\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020                   ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::8/14                        205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\nCuriae. I do not find anything palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or\n\ndemonstrably unsustainable in the impugned judgment. Having considered\n\nthe evidence, prosecution, in my view, has miserably failed in proving that\n\nthere was a demand and acceptance also.13                As stated earlier, the entire case of complainant was that he had\n\na telephone connection no.328344 at his Gala D-26, which due to his\n\nincrease in business, he wanted to shift to Gala 67-E and he had filed\n\nnecessary application. PW-1 says that accused made a demand of bribe on\n\n15th May 1996 for transfer of the said telephone connection no.328344 from\n\nGala D-26 to Gala 67-E and the demand was repeated on 17 th May 1996 and\n\nthe bribe amount was given at his unnumbered gala near J-Shell hall,\n\nSolapur. However, PW-2, who is a panch witness, and PW-6, who is an\n\nInvestigating Officer of A.C.B., both state that the trap was arranged in Gala\n\nNo.67-E and the bribe amount was also demanded in Gala 67-E and the\n\namount was also paid in Gala 67-E. That is how the panchnama also is\n\nrecorded and PW-2 and PW-6 also repeated the same in their evidence. PW-1\n\nin his cross examination states that he informed while lodging his complaint\n\n(Exhibit 20) that the place where the complainant was going to collect the\n\nbribe amount was the shop premises near J-Shell hall but he cannot assign\n\nwhy there is no reference to his shop near J-Shell hall in the complaint. PW-1\n\nalso says that he informed the Investigating Officer (PW-6) that the amount\n\nwas to be accepted by accused in his shop near J-Shell hall on 16 th May 1996\n\nand both the panchas were not present. PW-1 also admits in his cross\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020                 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::9/14                  205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\nexamination that he told PW-6 that accused will attend the shop near J-Shell\n\nhall in order to accept the amount as demanded by him and he was not told\n\nby PW-6 that he and PW-2 shall stand near the shop premises bearing no.67-\n\nE. PW-1 also denies that he or PW-2 sat in the premises of Gala No.67-E at\n\nabout 4.00 p.m. on 16th May 1996 waiting for the arrival of accused or was\n\nhe present in that shop alongwith PW-2 till 6.30 p.m. PW-1 also denies that\n\nhe told PW-6 that accused did not attend shop premises bearing no.67-E.\n\nPW-1 denies that what is stated in his statement recorded underSection 161of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he was given instructions by PW-6\n\nthat he should be in the shop premises bearing no.67-E, Siddheshwar Market\n\nYard, Solapur alongwith PW-2 is not correct. PW-1 also states that it is not\n\ntrue to state as recorded in his statement underSection 161of the Code of\n\nCriminal Procedure, that he and PW-2 remained present in Gala no.67-E or\n\nthat he and PW-2 were waiting for accused upto 6.30 p.m. in Gala no.67-E.\n\nPW-1 states that he did not even disclose to PW-6 that PW-1 and members of\n\nraiding party and panch no.2 - Potphode were present near Gala no.67-E by\n\nwatching the arrival of accused and he never mentioned any of these things\n\nto PW-6 when his statement was recorded. PW-1 categorically states "I have\n\nalready told you that I was not present in shop premises bearing no.67-E,\n\nalongwith panch no.1, as suggested by you, on 16.05.96. According to me, I\n\nmyself and panch no.1, were waiting for the accused on 16.5.96, in the cabin\n\nof J-Shell hall, Siddheshwar Market Yard, Solapur". The same thing appears\n\neven as regards the place where the bribe amount was asked for, given,\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020           ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::10/14                       205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\ntrapped and accused allegedly was caught red handed. Everywhere the place\n\nshown is Gala no.67-E, whereas it is the case of complainant that it\n\nhappened in the premises near J-Shell hall.14                At the cost of repetition, I would say the application, for which\n\nPW-1 had approached accused, was to transfer his telephone no.328344\n\nwhich was installed in Gala no.D-26 to Gala no.67-E and the demand of\n\nbribe and giving bribe is between 15 th May 1996 and 17th May 1996. PW-4,\n\nwho was working in Telecom Department as Assistant General Manager\n\n(Planning Department), Solapur Division, has in his evidence stated that the\n\ntelephone no.328344 was allotted to PW-1 and also installed only on\n\n28th June 1996. That also shows the case of the prosecution is improbable.\n\n15                As regards the sanction to prosecute accused, the sanctioning\n\nauthority (PW-9) says after receipt of papers he studied the entire matter and\n\ncame to a conclusion that there was prima facie case against accused in\n\nconnection with allegations made against him. Therefore, after completion of\n\nentire study of investigation papers, he signed the draft sanction by passing\n\nthe order that the case be lodged against accused underPC Act. The fact that\n\nPW-9 has not applied his mind is evident from the cross examination. The\n\ndocuments, which were provided to PW-9 alongwith the papers, are at\n\nExhibit 67. Ms. Khot, learned APP states that the documents submitted with\n\nthe proposed charge were in Marathi language. In his cross examination,\n\nPW-9 admits that he does not know Marathi language, reading and writing.\n\nPW-9 also says that possibly an English translation might have been supplied\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020                 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::11/14                            205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\nto him alongwith Marathi language documents. Therefore, PW-9 assumes\n\nthat an English translation was provided. No such endorsement is made in\n\nhis sanction order. PW-9 also does not confirm that he was satisfied with the\n\nso called translation and it was a true and correct translation.\n\n16                 The Apex Court in P. L. Tatwal V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh 5\n\nhas held that grant of sanction is a serious exercise of power by the\n\ncompetent authority who has to take a conscious decision on the basis of\n\nrelevant materials. The purpose of grant of sanction and the principles\n\ngoverning the issue can be found in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the said\n\njudgment, which read as under :12. The grant of sanction is only an administrative function. It is\n            intended to protect public servants against frivolous and vexatious\n            litigation. It also ensures that a dishonest officer is brought before law\n            and is tried in accordance with law. Thus, it is a serious exercise of power\n            by the competent authority. It has to be apprised of all the relevant\n            materials, and on such materials, the authority has to take a conscious\n            decision as to whether the facts would reveal the commission of an\n            offence under the relevant provisions. No doubt, an elaborate discussion\n            in that regard in the order is not necessary. But decision making on\n            relevant materials should be reflected in the order and if not, it should be\n            capable of proof before the court.13. In a recent decision in State of Maharashtra throughCentral Bureau\n            of Investigation v. Mahesh G. Jain, the court has referred to the various\n            decisions on this aspect from paragraph 8 onwards. It has been held at\n            paragraph 8 as follows :"8.In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. this Court lucidly\n                registered the view that (SCC p. 174, para 3) it is incumbent on the\n                prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the\n                sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction\n                has been made out constituting an offence and the same should be\n                done in two ways; either (i) by producing the original sanction\n                which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the\n                grounds of satisfaction, and (ii) by adducing evidence aliunde to\n                show the facts placed before the sanctioning authority and the\n                satisfaction arrived at by it. It is well settled that any case instituted\n                without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest\n                defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void5. (2014) 11 SCC 431\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020                              ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::12/14                           205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\n                ab initio."14. After referring to subsequent decisions, the main principles governing\n            the issue have been culled out at paragraph 14 which reads as follows :\n            "14.1. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction\n            has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a\n            case for sanction has been made out.14.2. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning\n            authority has perused the material placed before it and, after\n            consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.\n            14.3. The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the\n            material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction\n            was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it.\n            14.4. Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the\n            sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that\n            relevant facts would constitute the offence.14.5. The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority\n            cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the\n            sanction order.14.6. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed\n            before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate\n            the order of sanction.14.7. The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a\n            safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants,\n            but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a\n            pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to\n            test its validity."(emphasis supplied)\n\n\n\n17                 Moreover, a learned single Judge of this court (S.B.Shukre, J.) in\n\nState of Maharashtra through Deputy Superintendent of Police ACB Nagpur\n\nV/s. Devidas s/o. Narayanrao Bobde 6 has held that signing on draft sanction\n\norder submitted by A.C.B would indicate non application of mind and by\n\nsigning the draft sanction order the sanctioning authority has not ascertained\n\nthe root cause of the demand of bribe by respondent. Moreover, PW-9 has\n\nadmitted that he does not read or understand Marathi language. On this\n\nground alone, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio.6. 2014 SCC Online Bom.1045\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020                          ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::13/14                           205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\n18                The Apex Court in Chandrappa & Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka7\n\nin paragraph 42 has laid down the general principles regarding powers of the\n\nAppellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.\n\nParagraph 42 reads as under :"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following\n                general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing\n                with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;\n                (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and\n                reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;\n                (2)The Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,\n                restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate\n                Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on\n                questions of fact and of law;(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons',\n                'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted\n                conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail\n                extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal.\n                Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to\n                emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with\n                acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence\n                and to come to its own conclusion.(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of\n                acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the the accused.\n                Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the\n                fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall\n                be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent\n                court of law. Secondly, the the accused having secured his acquittal,\n                the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and\n                strengthened by the trial court.(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the\n                evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding\n                of acquittal recorded by the trial court."19                There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption\n\nin favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the\n\naccused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every\n\nperson shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a\n\ncompetent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured acquittal, the7. (2007) 4 SCC 415\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020                          ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::14/14                       205.Apeal-228-2001.doc\n\n\n\n\npresumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and\n\nstrengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court\n\nobserved that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.\n\n\n20                In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the Trial Court\n\ncannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of\n\nacquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with. I cannot find any fault with\n\nthe judgment of the Trial Court.21                Appeal dismissed.\n\n22                The Government/Appropriate Authority shall              pay over torespondent, within a period of 30 days from today, all pensionary or other\n\nbenefits/dues stalled, in view of pendency of this appeal. No authority shall\n\ndemand certified copy for reimbursing the benefits/dues as directed above.\n\nAll to act on authenticated copy of this order. Certified copy expedited. If\n\nduring the service, in view of this matter, the promotions or increments of\n\naccused have been affected, the concerned Authority/Department will pay,\n\nproceed and calculate on the basis that there was no such matter ever on\n\nrecord against accused and will factor in all promotions and increments that\n\naccused would have been entitled to and all the amounts shall be\n\naccordingly paid within 30 days.After 30 days interest at 12% p.a. will have to be paid by\n\nGovernment/ Appropriate Authority to respondent.(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)\n\nGauri Gaekwad::: Uploaded on - 04/02/2020                 ::: Downloaded on - 04/02/2020 23:54:02 :::