Leave to appeal against acquittal denied where prosecution failed to produce CCTV footage and link accused to recovered property.

On March 16, 2019, the complainant (accused-Ashok, then a Cashier at Bandhan Bank) and colleagues returned from field collections and deposited ₹5,50,000 with Ashok. After lunch, the staff allegedly felt dizzy and lost consciousness.

Upon waking, Ashok reported the money missing from his drawer. Following a police investigation, charges were filed under Sections 120-B, 392, and 328 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that ₹4,56,000 was recovered from Ashok and ₹1,00,000 from co-accused Swapnil.

On October 5, 2023, the trial court acquitted both respondents. The State subsequently filed this application for leave to appeal against the acquittal.

1. Whether the State has presented sufficient grounds to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the trial court’s findings were perverse or interfered with the settled principles of law regarding the appreciation of evidence.

The court applied Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding appeals in cases of acquittal.

It relied on the principle from State of Karnataka v. Suvarnamma, which establishes that if a "possible view" has been taken by the trial court, the appellate court should not interfere unless the view is legally unsustainable.

State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, stating that "suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof".

Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Ventak Reddy, emphasizing that the presumption of innocence is bolstered by an acquittal.

The High Court observed that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of co-accused Swapnil's presence at the bank during the incident. Specifically, the Investigating Officer was negligent in failing to collect CCTV footage, which would have been the best evidence.

The court noted that no identification of currency notes was conducted and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report did not support the prosecution's theory of drugging.

Regarding the recovered money, the court noted defense arguments that the bulk of the cash was found under a cot within the bank itself and that no link was established between the two accused.

Consequently, the court found that the trial court's decision was a "possible view" based on the lack of sufficient evidence to establish culpability beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the criminal appeal was consequently dismissed.