The State of Maharashtra v. Shivaji Jaisingrao Patil

8.1. She would submit that accordingly sanction is accorded. She would submit that Sanction Order bears sign of Mr. Bhimsen Naik, C.E.O. Zilla Parishad, Solapur at the then time. She would submit that though in cross-examination several questions are asked to Sanctioning Authority as to whether he had received a typed draft copy of Sanction Order or whether he applied his mind before according sanction, he has answered these questions by stating that he signed the Sanction Order after going through the same. She would submit that if Sanction Order is seen, it is a detailed order running into six pages signed by PW-1, who is the appointing and removing Authority in accordance with law.

8.2. Next, she would submit that deposition of PW-2 Complainant is most crucial evidence in this case which proves case of prosecution and it therefore needs to be appreciated in its proper perspective. She would submit that evidence of PW-2 is direct evidence as eye-witness to the acceptance of graft from him which is recovered from Respondent. By drawing my attention to his examination-in-chief, she would submit that Complainant has given a detailed account of his duties and work on deputation at Panchayat Samiti, Kurduwadi. That he has deposed that pursuant to Sanction Order dated 19.08.2000 passed by BDO, Karmala, Complainant sought details of all incomplete works required to be completed by him by addressing letter dated 24.08.2000 to BDO, Kurduwadi, which is marked in evidence below Exhibit-12. That after receiving all registers and files pertaining to pending works, Complainant completed the same by 04.01.2001 and thereafter addressed letter dated 05.01.2001 to BDO Kurduwadi seeking work Completion Certificate and relieving letter so that he could resume his duty at Panchayat Samiti, Karmala. That he also requested to forward his LPC and service book along with details of travelling allowance and dearness allowance so that he could claim his salary and the entitled expenses.

8.3. She would submit that since Complainant did not receive his salary nor relieving letter, he called upon the BDO, Kurduwadi who asked him to meet Respondent since Respondent was to submit report about completion of pending works by him. She would submit that Complainant met Respondent on 09.01.2001, 12.01.2001, 16.01.2001, 18.01.2001, 30.01.2001, 07.02.2001 and 08.02.2001 that BDO, Kurduwadi informed him that unless report was received from Respondent it was not possible for him to issue works Completion Certificate to him.

8.4. She would submit that Respondent made initial demand of Rs.25,000/- from Complainant on 12.01.2001 for the first time. She would submit that Complainant at that time expressed his inability to pay the said amount but when he met Respondent on 18.01.2001 subsequently he was told to pay Rs. 15,000/-. She would submit that when Complainant expressed his inability to part with this amount also Respondent was unrelenting but on 30.01.2001, Respondent asked Complainant that he should pay Rs.5,000/- out of Rs.15,000 and balance amount of Rs.10,000/- can be paid later.

8.5. She would submit that when Complainant met Respondent on 07.02.2000, he asked him to pay Rs.5,000/- on the following day that is on 08.02.2001 and the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- later. Thus she would submit that Respondent made four demands for payment of bribe amount to issue Completion Certificate to Complainant as delineated above. She would submit that aforesaid turn of events compelled Complainant to lodge complaint on 07.02.2001.

8.6. Next she would submit that deposition of PW-2, Complainant himself, clearly establishes the pre-trap panchnama carried by the ACB by following the due process of law and post-trap panchnama. She would submit that in the post-trap panchanama marked ‘currency notes’ of Rs.5,000/- to which anthracene powder was applied at the pre-trap panchnama stage were recovered from Respondent after he had accepted the same from Complainant.

8.7. She would submit that spot of incident was 'Sachin Uphar Gruha' where Complainant; panch witness No.1 i.e. PW-3 and Respondent – Accused sat face to face for having tea when Respondent asked Complainant in Marathi language to hand over amount of Rs.5,000/- to him at which time Complainant handed over the same to him and he kept it in his watch pocket. She would submit that thereafter Complainant paid the tea bill of Rs.10/- to the canteen Cashier and alerted the ACB team who was waiting outside the canteen and Respondent was apprehended with the marked ‘currency notes’ and traces of anthracene powder from his hands and fingers. Post-trap panchanama was prepared and on the following day complaint was filed against Respondent by ACB.

8.8. She would thus submit that this is an open and shut case proved by prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts of Respondent having received Rs.5,000/- demanded by him out of Rs.15,000/- from Complainant and liable for being prosecuted under the said Act.

8.9. She would submit that Respondent challenged grant of sanction by Sanctioning Authority and even on merits by taking a defense that the amount of Rs.5,000/- handed over by Complainant to him was the amount of tickets sold of a Marathi show called 'Natrangi Nar'' held on 07.01.2001, in respect of which Respondent had given ticket booklets to Complainant for sale of tickets to public and the amount of Rs.5,000/- was the amount of tickets sold which Complainant handed over to him.

8.10. She would submit that case of prosecution deserved to be believed because it was an admitted position that Complainant completed all pending works for which reason he was transferred on deputation to Kurduwadi and it only thereafter that he demanded Completion Certificate. She would fairly submit that these facts are undisputed though on the aspect of completion of work, defense has through its witnesses have attempted to prove that Complainant did not join and complete the pending works and it is only out of revenge to trap Respondent and BDO, Kurduwadi that he made out a false case. She would submit that evidence of PW-2 stands corroborated by PW-3, who is an independent witness to the actual incident of accepting bribe amount of Rs.5,000/-. She would submit that pre-trap and post-trap panchanama below Exhibit-24 and Exhibit-25, virtually prove the prosecution case of demand and acceptance and defense argument that pre-trap panchanama and post-trap panchanama amount carried and recovered from Complainant was the same (Rs.758/-) when it was PW-2’s case that he paid Rs.10/- out of the said amount after having tea with Respondent to the canteen Cashier cannot disprove the fact that Respondent - Accused accepted the bribe amount. She would submit that learned Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the prosecution case and therefore the impugned judgement requires a revisit on the basis of re-appreciation of the aforesaid evidence by this Court in the present Appeal.

8.11. In support of prosecution case she has referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court:-

(i) C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka[1];

(ii) Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. Of NCT Delhi)2; and

(iii) The State of Karnataka Vs. Chandrasha[3].

8.12. She would contend that Sanction Order in the present case in an expressive order. She would submit that it is eloquent enough and clearly shows that Sanctioning Authority has considered the case against Respondent which is stated in detail therein. She would submit that Supreme Court in the case of C.S. Krishnamurthy (1st supra) held that only formal evidence has to be seen by Sanctioning Authority with due application of mind. She would submit that it is not possible to take a pedantic approach as argued by defence that Sanction Order was a mere draft order given to the Authority and there was no application of his mind before signing it. She would submit that Sanction Order considers all aspects as stated therein and is therefore valid for prosecuting Respondent - Government Servant. She would submit that Sanctioning Authority PW-1 has himself deposed that he has signed the Sanction Order after being acquainted with the detailed facts which would render the sanction as valid.

8.13. She would further submit that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta (2nd supra), proof of demand of acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a sine qua non in order to establish guilt of Accused – public servant for offence of bribery. She 2 AIR OnLine 2022 SC 1160. 3 2024 INSC 899. would submit that this proposition stands fully established by direct evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 in the present case and once it is proved commission of offence is established.

8.14. She would submit that defence case of relying upon an alibi relating to the amount being the ticket proceeds received by Respondent cannot be accepted because it is a complete afterthought by defence to challenge the direct evidence proved by prosecution witnesses. She would submit that oral evidence proved by prosecution in the present case through PW-2 and PW-3 is direct or original evidence whereas the defence evidence through its witnesses is hearsay evidence or derivative evidence. Hence she would submit that applying the principles laid in in the case of Neeraj Dutta (2nd supra) by the Supreme Court, the impugned judgement of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.

8.15. She would next invoke the presumption under Section 20 (1) of the said Act and would submit that when fact of receipt of payment stands proven then a clear case of nexus is established and therefore presumption under Section 20 (1) of the said Act is irrelevant. She would submit that in the present case recovery of bribe amount from Respondent is fully proved and therefore defence explanation offered by him is fragile, a clear afterthought and made to merely oppose the proven case of prosecution.

8.16. She would heavily rely upon the ratio in decision of The State of Karnataka (3rd supra) in support of prosecution case and urge the Court to consider the overall circumstances and evidence on record to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

9. PER CONTRA, Mr. Killedar, learned Advocate for the Respondent – Accused would vehemently oppose the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and would support the impugned judgment. At the outset, he would vehemently attack the Sanction Order taken on record below Exhibit-9 and contend that on a plain reading of the said Sanction Order it is an admitted position that PW-1 received it as a draft sanction having three blank spaces therein for filling in the name of the Authority, the designation, date and place and thereafter to append his signature thereto. He would submit that it is an admitted position by the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 himself that he merely filled in the aforesaid three blank spaces and signed on the already transcribed Sanction Order to drive home the point that such signature made on an already transcribed Sanction Order by merely filing in blanks of name, designation, place and date would amount to issuing the Order with complete non-application of mind. In this context, he would draw my attention towards cross-examination of PW-1 – Sanctioning Authority and would submit that in paragraph No.3 thereof, he has admitted that before according sanction he did not prepare any notes or made any attempt to find out if any official work was pending to be completed by Complainant and most importantly he did not receive the 'B' file which is the office file of Complainant before ascertaining and verifying the contents of the draft Sanction Order.

9.1. He would submit that grant of sanction is a serious exercise of power by the exercising authority and he is expected to take a conscious decision on the basis of cogent material placed before him. He would vehemently argue that in the present case once the Court is acceded upon to take cognizance of the bar under Section 19 of the said Act, it was inquired whether there was a valid sanction to prosecute a Pubic Servant. He would submit that in the present case, Sanctioning Authority PW-1 has himself admitted that he has filled three blanks i.e. his name, designation / Authority, date and place which would amount to a mere formality by him. He would submit that as held by Supreme Court in the case of C.S. Krishnamurthy (1st supra), Sanctioning Officer is the best person to judge as to whether the public servant should receive protection under the said Act by refusing to accord sanction or otherwise. He would submit that in that regard application of mind on the part of Sanctioning Authority is therefore imperative and, the order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there is proper application of mind which in the present case is clearly absent.

10. He would submit that sanction is accorded in the present case by PW-1 without calling for the 'B' file of Complainant, in not ascertaining and verifying the contents of the draft Sanction Order presented and merely appending signature on the transcribed draft copy of sanction received from the ACB.

11. Next on the merits of the matter, Mr. Killedar would submit that prosecution has argued that initial demand was made by Respondent on 12.01.2001, 16.01.2001, 18.01.2001 and 07.02.2001 and it is his case that on all above dates, Complainant visited the office of BDO Kurduwadi and met BDO and Respondent in his office when the demand was made / reiterated. He would submit that defence witnesses have placed on record documentary evidence in the form of Log book of the Government vehicle of BDO, Kurduwadi and also examined BDO, Kurduwadi as DW-1 to prove that on all aforementioned dates BDO was never present in his office during the day and he was away on field duty. He would submit that the Log book of Government vehicle has been taken on record on Exhibit-49 and each of the entries on the above dates show that BDO was not physically present in his office during office hours throughout the day. Further he would submit that admittedly Respondent was on sanctioned leave from 19.01.2001 to 07.02.2001 which is also proved by Investigating Officer. He would therefore submit that the allegation of Complainant of having met Respondent and BDO on all / some of the aforesaid dates is therefore clearly false.

12. He would submit that Log book entries on all aforesaid dates clearly show the time of departure of the BDO for his office, place of work visited for carrying out his official duties on all aforesaid dates and his return time to Solapur / Office and would contend that Complainant has made out a false case of having met the BDO / Respondent on all above dates pertaining to initial demand by Respondent. He would submit that entries in the Government Log book cannot be disbelieved and therefore learned Trial Court has considered the same in its proper perspective as an important ground to exonerate the Respondent.

13. Next on the issue of motive behind the demand and acceptance of bribe, he would submit that in this case it is Complainant's case that he required the relieving letter from BDO, Kurduwadi but BDO asked him to meet the Respondent – accused repeatedly for getting the completion of pending works certificate. He would submit that in evidence it is proved that Complainant did not join Kurduwadi Panchayat Samiti Office in the first place that there is no joining report produced, that he never completed any of the pending works, that he was issued Show Cause Notice for not completing the pending works, that he replied to the said notices in writing, that Departmental action was initiated against him. He would submit that in PW - 2 i.e. Complainant's cross-examination when asked to produce his joining report, he could not produce it and most importantly he admitted that he never signed any muster roll or tour register in Kurduwadi Panchayat Samiti Office which he claimed to have joined on deputation for completion of the incomplete works. He would submit that Complainant failed to prove and place on record any documentary evidence of he having even attempted to complete any of the incomplete works on his alleged joining Kurduwadi Office.

14. In support of his above submissions, he would invite my attention to Exhibit-27 which is the ‘B’ file that is the office file of Complainant and contend that perusal of the said office file shows that Complainant did not complete any of the pending works that the BDO therefore issued Show Cause Notice to him and Complainant replied to those Show Cause Notices in writing. He would argue that Exhibit-27 shows that due to such dereliction of duty by Complainant BDO, Kurduwadi submitted adverse report about Complainant - CEO Zilla Parishhad, Solapur. Thereafter Departmental Inquiry was initiated against Complainant on the ground that even though he was relieved as far back as on 19.08.2000 from by BDO, Karmala and directed to join Kurduwadi Panchyat Samiti Office for completion of pending works he did not join Kurduwadi Office and falsely claimed to have completed the pending works and claimed to be reimbursed.

15. He would draw my attention to Show Cause Notice dated 05.08.2000; letters dated 18.12.2000 and 12.01.2001 which are taken on record below Exhibit-18, Exhibit-46 and Exhibit-47 in evidence and proceedings book dated 15.01.2001 which is taken on record below Exhibit-48 in support of his above submissions to prove that Complainant never joined Kurduwadi Panchyat Samiti Office. He would submit that implication of Respondent by Complainant is on account of a completely false and malafide case due to his Departmental proceedings and Complainant was merely waiting for an opportunity to frame the Respondent and BDO, Kurduwadi for which he deliberately waited until beyond 07.02.2001.

16. He would submit that the Charity Show for which ticket booklets were given by Respondent to Complainant and many other staff members that were to be accounted for on 08.02.2001 since the show was held on 07.02.2001. Complainant met Respondent on 08.02.2001 at 05:30 p.m. after office hours for handing over amount of tickets sold, which finds mention in the post-trap panchanama below Exhibit-25. He would submit that the delay in the aforesaid case from the date of initial demand i.e. 12.01.2001 upto 07.02.2001 is clearly evitable on the face of record and therefore learned Trial Court has correctly examined and appreciated the evidence on record in determining the motive and defence of Respondent before coming to the conclusion that defense evidence is more probable and acceptable and it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts resulting in Respondent being acquitted.

17. In support of his aforesaid submissions and propositions, he has referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court:- (i) Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 4;(ii) State (Anti Corruption Branch) Vs. R.C. Anand (Dr.)5; (iii) State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jain[6]; (iv) Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P.7; (v) Motilal Jalsingh Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra[8]; (vi) Sashikant Piraji Sonawane Vs. The State of Maharashtra[9]; (vii) Sashikant Sitaram Masdekar and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra10; (viii) Nishant Bhaskarrao Kulkarni since deceased through his Legal Heirs and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra11; and (ix) Sait Tarajee Khimchand and Others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam alias Satteyya and Ors.12.

18. I have heard the submissions made by Ms. Phad, learned APP for State and Mr. Killedar, learned Advocate for Respondent and with their able assistance perused the entire record of the case.

19. At the outset, challenge to grant of Sanction Order which has been vehemently argued by defence needs to be addressed before I 4 (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 166.

11 2019 (2) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 18. 12 (1972) 4 Supreme Court Cases 562. advert to the submissions on merits. The valid sanction granted, being the bone of contention between parties is objected to by the defense as not a valid sanction in the first place. Trial Court has however rejected this contention but acquitted the Respondent on merits of the case. Admittedly Respondent has not filed an Appeal to challenge the acceptance of the Sanction Order as valid. However the issue of valid sanction goes to the root of the matter. It is the sine qua non of the prosecution case. It is a statutory requirement. If the sanction order is invalid, all further proceedings have to fail.

20. I have heard Ms. Phad and Mr. Killedar on the above issue of grant of sanction extensively as both learned Advocates have chosen to address me and also perused the authoritative pronouncements on the same. Admittedly, Respondent is a public servant. It is seen that PW-1 i.e. Sanctioning Authority is the appointing and removing authority for Respondent who is appointed as Extension Officer in the Kurduwadi Panchyat Samiti Office. The Sanction Order is appended at page Nos.52 to 59 and is taken on record in evidence as Exhibit-9. Both learned Advocates have taken me through the said Sanction Order in the course of their submissions.

21. It is seen that Respondent was working as Extension Officer. Perusal of Exhibit-9 shows that it is a detailed Sanction Order in Marathi language which delineates all facts of the case which are alluded to hereinabove and concludes that Respondent is guilty of committing offence under the said Act and therefore sanction is accorded to prosecute him.

22. The Sanction Order is running into 8 pages from page Nos.52 to 59 of the paperbook. On internal page No.7, it is stated that the Sanctioning Authority has scrutinised the entire record of the case. The Sanctioning Authority has deposed in evidence as PW-1. In his cross-examination Sanctioning Authority has categorically admitted that he has not received and seen the 'B' file of Complainant before according sanction, that he has not made any notes to ascertain the noting from the record, that he received draft Sanction Order with three (3) blanks to be filled in by him namely his name, authority / designation and date, that he filled in the above by putting his name, place, date and signature in his handwriting in the blank space provided, that according to him it was not necessary to find out if any official work remained incomplete by Complainant, that it was duty of BDO to ascertain whether Complainant had completed the incomplete works before relieving him and he admitted that no file was put up before him for relieving the Complainant.

23. In the backdrop of the above deposition of Sanctioning Authority, Mr. Killedar vehemently submitted that there is complete non-application of mind by Sanctioning Authority while granting sanction without ascertaining the motive, without ascertaining the initial demand made on atleast four occasions, without ascertaining the final demand, without studying the 'B' file i.e. office file of Complainant to ascertain whether he indeed completed the pending work and without doing so he has mechanically signed on the draft Sanction Order and hence the Sanction Order lacks on its validity at the inception stage itself. In view of these submissions it would be worthwhile to reproduce certain paragraphs of the authoritarian pronouncements on the above issue of “application of mind” by the Sanctioning Authority so as to consider and accept the prosecution case.

24. Paragraph Nos.13 to 20 of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Bench (Coram Ms. Bharti Dangre J.) in the case of Sagar Ramchandra Vatkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra13 pronounced on 09.04.2021 encapsulates all guiding principles etched out from previous pronouncements of Courts required to be adhered by the Sanctioning Authority before according sanction for prosecution under the said Act. The said paragraphs are reproduced herein below for reference:-

31. Admittedly on the day of trap i.e. 08.02.2001 Respondent was on sanctioned leave and he came to his office in the evening after office hours to meet his colleagues for collection of money of sold tickets of the Charity Show held on the previous day. It has come on record that Respondent was on sanctioned leave from 19.01.2001 to 07.02.2001. The defence of Respondent has been duly corroborated by the oral evidence of DW-2 and DW-3. DW-2 and DW-3 are office colleagues of Complainant in BDO Office, Kurduwadi who were also given ticket booklets for sale of tickets and who met the Respondent on 08.02.2001 to hand over the amount of sold tickets and unused ticket booklets to him. Further in so far as the trap event is concerned, it is seen that the amount of cash carried separately by Complainant apart from the trap amount during pre-trap panchnama and post-trap panchnama was the same amount i.e. Rs.758/- as recorded in both Panchnamas. This is strange as it could not have been the same. The post-trap panchnama ought to have reflected a lesser amount.

32. If the relevant panchnama below Exhibit-24 and Exhibit-25 are seen then in view of the above prosecution case that Complainant paid Rs.10 to the canteen Cashier from the amount he was carrying with him cannot be countenanced. Rather it falsifies the prosecution case altogether. Further evidence of PW-3 i.e. panch witness reveals that the raiding party was outside the canteen along with him and only after receiving signal from Complainant they rushed inside to the incident spot. This is so because PW-3 has answered that it is true that after the signal, the raiding party which was outside, they as well as myself and Mr. Metkari rushed to the spot. This evidence is clinching as it shows that the pancha witness and the raiding party were both present outside the canteen.

33. This raises serious discrepancies and questions on the posttrap panchanama below Exhibit-25. Finally the most important piece of evidence which militates against the Prosecution case is the Certified Copy of the Log Book placed in evidence below Exhibit-49. This Log Book maintains the movement of the Government vehicles in the BDO, Kurduwadi office alongwith the details of visit, time, etc.. BDO, Kurduwadi i.e. DW-1 has himself placed the original Log Book on record in evidence. This Log book shows that on 12.01.2001 BDO, Kurduwadi along with Respondent left for Solapur in the morning for work at 07:00 a.m. and returned to Kurduwadi on 13.01.2001 at 02:00 p.m. by the official jeep of the said office. Thereafter on 16.01.2001 Log Book entry shows that BDO, Kurduwadi and Respondent left for Solapur for work at 07:00 a.m. in the morning and returned back at 10:00 p.m. in the night. Thereafter entry dated 23.01.2001 in the Log Book shows that once again they left Kurduwadi at 08:00 a.m. and returned back at 11:00 p.m. after completing their work. Similar is the Log Book entry for 30.01.2001. Every entry in the Log Book bears the signature of BDO. Thus it is crystal clear that on all dates of initial demand alleged by Complainant, both the BDO, Kurduwadi and Respondent were never present in their office in Kurduwadi Panchayat Samiti and this raises a grave doubt about the truthfulness of the Complainant's case. The story alleged by Complainant regarding Exhibit-16 i.e. the handwritten chit of paper by Respondent given to BDO about the initial demand on 23.01.2001 therefore fails. Ironically prosecution did not confront DW-1 i.e. BDO, Kurduwadi the defense witness with respect to Exhibit-16.

34. In view of the above observations and findings it is clear that in such graft cases, there has to be a minute scrutiny of each fact with absolute degree of caution exercised by the Statutory Officers. In a given case if the Accused is able to show that there is a serious prejudice on account of available evidence placed on record, it calls for a much greater degree of care and caution. Such is the case herein.

35. In the present case, it is clearly seen that if the aforementioned discussed evidence which is part of the 'B' file of Complainant would had been seen by the Sanctioning Authority, the result would have been different. Facts in the present case clearly point out non-application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority since what is therefore stated in the Sanction Order is not a true reflection of the actual facts placed on record and proved by the Defence in the present case.

36. Respondent – Accused has therefore suffered an ignominious situation of having to face a trial and the prolonged wait for determination of this Appeal, but by virtue of the judgement of the Trial Court, he has been acquitted on both counts i.e. the issue of sanction and merits of the matter. On the basis of the above discussions on facts and evidence on record, issue of initial demand, rather demands, issue of motive, admitted delay in approaching the Law Enforcement Agency (ACB), the trap event, the pre-trap and post-trap panchnamas leave several questions unanswered for the prosecution, which are answered by the impugned judgment of acquittal. The judgement dated 08.03.2004 is a well reasoned and cogent judgement which highlights serious lacunae on the part of the prosecution case. The said judgement therefore deserves to be upheld. It is so upheld

37. I would also like to quote paragraphs Nos.20 to 21 of the decision of this Court (Coram: K.R. Sriram J.) in the case The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramesh Khandu Salve14; wherein decisions of the Supreme Court which are directly relevant to the facts of the case in hand are quoted with approval. paragraphs Nos.20 to 21 read thus:-

14 Criminal Appeal No.372 of 2006 decided on 05.03.2021. “20. The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P. has culled out the factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal. Paragraph Nos.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 acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's 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 court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong.

73. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's 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 justice"; iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was 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 evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ 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 to the findings of the trial court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. The Apex Court in many other judgments including Murlidhar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka has held that unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are found to be palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice. Appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions of the Trial Court. Apex Court also held that merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. We must also keep in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of Respondent and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the Trial Court. The Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat has held that if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained because Appellate Court finds the order to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In other words, if Appellate Court finds that there was nothing wrong or manifestly erroneous with the order of the Trial Court, the Appeal Court need not even re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions.

21. I do not find anything palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable in the impugned judgment. From the evidence available on record, there is nothing to substantiate the charge leveled against accused.

22. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused 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, accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court rightly observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.”

38. Resultantly the Criminal Appeal fails and stands dismissed. Ajay [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]