Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.99 OF 2021
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9105 of 2015]
State of Gujarat .. Appellant
Versus
Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave .. Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the High Court of
Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2003 by which the High Court
has acquitted the respondent herein – original accused for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Chetan Kumar
Date: 2021.02.02
17:18:18 IST
Reason:
offences under Section 7 read with Sections 13(1) & 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by
2
quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction
passed by the Learned Special Judge, Bharuch, the State of Gujarat
has preferred the present appeal.
3. The respondent herein – original accused (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the accused’) who was working as Assistant Director in ITI,
Gandhi Nagar was charged for the offences punishable under
Section 7 read with Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act.
3.1 The Learned Special Judge, Bharuch after fullfledged trial
and appreciation of the entire evidence on record and by detailed
judgment and order convicted the accused under Section 7 read
with Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act. The Learned Special Judge
held the accused guilty and convicted the accused for the aforesaid
offences and imposed the sentence of 5 years imprisonment and
with fine of Rs.10,000/.
3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Special Judge in
Special A.C.B. Case No.14/2000 the accused preferred appeal
before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2003. By the
3
impugned judgment and order, the High Court without any detailed
reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, has acquitted the
accused for the offences for which he was convicted.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court, the State
of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal.
5. We have heard Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of State of Gujarat and Shri J.S. Attri, Learned
Senior Advocate and Shri Haresh Raichura, Learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent – accused.
5.1. Number of submissions have been made by learned counsels
of the respective parties. However, for the reasons stated herein
below, we propose to remand the matter to the High Court, any
observation made by this Court may affect either the prosecution or
the defence, we refrain from dealing with the submissions made by
the Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties
on merits.
4
6. We have gone through the detailed judgment and order of
conviction passed by the Learned Trial Court and also the evidence
on record laid down by the prosecution as well as the defence. We
have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed
by the High Court to ascertain whether the High Court has
conformed to the principles while exercising in the criminal appeal
against the judgment and order of conviction. We find that the
High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner in which High
Court ought to have while dealing with the appeal against the order
of conviction. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the High Court, we find that, as such, there is
no reappreciation of the entire evidence on record in detail while
acquitting the respondent – accused. The High Court has only
made general observations on the depositions of the witnesses
examined. However, there is no reappreciation of the entire
evidence on record in detail, which ought to have been done by the
High Court while dealing with the judgment and order of conviction
passed by the Learned Trial Court.
5
6.1 The High Court ought to have appreciated that it was dealing
with the first appeal against the order of conviction passed by the
Learned trial Court. Being First Appellate Court, the High Court
was required to reappreciate the entire evidence on record and also
the reasoning given by the Learned trial Court while convicting the
accused. Nonreappreciation of the evidence on record may affect
the case of either the prosecution or even the accused. Being the
First Appellate Court the High Court ought to have reappreciated
the entire evidence on record without any limitation, which might
be there while dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal
passed by the Learned Trial Court.
6.2 An Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal passed by the Learned trial Court, is required to bear in
mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour
of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that
every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
6
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
Therefore, while dealing with the cases of acquittal by the trial
Court, the Appellate Court would have certain limitations. Even in
the case of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court, in the case
of , (1978) 1 SCC
Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs. The State of Gujarat
228, it is observed and held by this Court that “Once the appeal is
entertained against the order of acquittal, the High Court is entitled
to reappreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its
own conclusion. Ordinarily, the High Court would give due
importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were
arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court
would be justified against an acquittal passed by the Learned Trial
Court even on reappreciation of the entire evidence independently
and come to its own conclusion that acquittal is perverse and
manifestly erroneous”. However, so far as the appeal against the
order of conviction is concerned, there are no such restrictions and
the Court of appeal has wide powers of appreciation of evidence and
the High Court has to reappreciate the entire evidence on record
being a First Appellate Court. Keeping in mind that once the
7
Learned Trial Court has convicted there shall not be presumption of
innocence as would be there in the case of acquittal.
7. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the High Court, we find that High Court decision is based
on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal
position. The approach of the High Court in dealing/nondealing
with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of
justice. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the
respondent – accused without adverting to the reasons given by the
Learned trial Court while convicting the accused and without re
appreciating the entire evidence on record in detail cannot be
sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. We
are of the opinion that therefore matter deserves to be remanded to
the High Court to consider and deal with the appeal afresh in
accordance with law and on its own merits keeping in mind the
observations made hereinabove. The High Court ought to have
8
appreciated that it was dealing with the offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act which offences are against the society.
And therefore the High Court ought to have been more careful and
ought to have gone in detail. We do not approve the manner in
which the High Court has dealt with the appeal.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove
and without expressing anything on merits of the case, the present
appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated
12.01.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2003 passed by the High
Court acquitting the accused for the offences under the Act for
which he was tried is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal
before the High Court is restored to its original file. The High Court
to decide and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and on
its own merits bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove.
At the cost of repetition we observe that we have not expressed
anything on merits in favour of either prosecution or even the
9
accused and the High Court to decide and dispose of the appeal on
its own merits as observed hereinabove.
.……………………………J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
……………………………J.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY)
……………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
New Delhi,
February 2, 2021.