"Reversal Of Acquittal Is Permissible Only If Trial Court's View Is Not Only Erroneous But Also Unreliable & Perverse" Supreme Court Reiterates

In a matter of reversal of Trial Court's acquittal order by the High Court, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the reversal of acquittal is permissible only if the view of the Trial Court is not only erroneous but also unreasonable and perverse.

A Bench comprising Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Aniruddha Bose made the observation in a criminal appeal filed against Calcutta High Court's order reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and convicting the appellant for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Bench opined that the view taken by the Trial Court was a possible view, which was neither perverse nor unreasonable, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, ought not to have been reversed or interfered with by the High Court.

Facts: The present appellant, a public servant was convicted by the High Court with imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act including criminal misconduct, taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, and obtaining for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

In the present matter, it is CBI's case that the a complaint was filed before the S.P., C.B.I., Anti-Corruption Branch, Kolkata in 2003 claiming that the appellant herein demanded illegal gratification for not implicating the complainant in a false case of operating a racket engaged in sale of computerized railway reservation tickets in connivance with the middle man. However, he did not agree to bribe them.

Pursuant to the written complaint lodged by him the C.B.I. authority laid pre-trap plan and in presence of independent witnesses and after observing necessary formalities gave a demonstration regarding the reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate on currency notes, which would be handed over.

The complainant was asked to pay the same to the appellant. After the money was handed over, CBI prepared the seizure list and post-trap memo was conducted, the petitioner's hands were washed out with the solution and it turned pink.

The case was registered accordingly and after completion of investigation, and charges were framed under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Appellant's Contentions: The appellant in his appeal argued that the High Court ought to have appreciated that the Trial Court in addition to taking notes of entire facts, circumstances and evidences available on records also took not of the fact that except one witness from C.B.I. i.e. Investigating Officer, no other witness from C.B.I. was examined in the present case even though a number of formalities were completed by other C.B.I. officials.

Further, it has been pointed out that the Trial Court while acquitting the appellant considered the following:

• No other person who prepared or were present at the time of preparation of Pre-Trap memo or signed the same has been examined in the case by C.B.I.
• Articles were seized under two seizure lists (Ext. 35 & 41) written by two different officers of C.B.I. but both these witnesses were not examined by the C.B.I.
  
• A Post-Trap memo was prepared by another C.B.I. officer but again this witness has not been examined by the C.B.I.
  
• A rough sketch map was allegedly prepared but the was never produced or exhibited before the Trial Court.
  

High Court's Order: The High Court noted that the trial Court in its judgment considered non examination of relevant witnesses as one of the factors for giving acquittal. However the Bench observed that from the time immaterial it is accepted by the courts in India, that quality of the evidence is the urgent desideratum and not the quantity.

The Bench observed that if the public prosecutor concerned things that some of the witnesses may not support the prosecution, he has the liberty to not to produce that witness before the court.

After going through the entire evidence on record the High Court was of the view that the trial Court arrived at a conclusion without any basis and was mainly motivated by surmise and conjecture. Had the evidence been properly scrutinized in that case decision would be reversed.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the trial court and convicted the petitioner.

Case Title: Suman Chandra vs CBI

Citation : LL 2021 SC 758

Click Here To Read/Download Order