Appeal: Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference – Conviction of respondent-accused by trial court u/s.7 r/w ss.13(1) and (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Acquittal by High Court – On State’s appeal, held: High Court made general observations on the depositions of the witnesses examined – However, there was no re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record in detail, which ought to have been done by High Court while dealing with order of conviction passed by trial court – High Court ought to have appreciated that it was dealing with first appeal against order of conviction passed by trial court – Being the First Appellate Court, High Court ought to have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record without any limitation, which might be there while dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by trial court – High Court was dealing with the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act which offences are against the society and, therefore, High Court ought to have been more careful and have gone in detail – Matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh in accordance with law.
Appeal: Power of High Court to deal with appeal against conviction and appeal against acquittal – Distinction between – Held: An Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal passed by 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 reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by trial court – Therefore, while dealing with the cases of acquittal by trial court, the Appellate Court would have certain limitations – However, so far as appeal against 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 to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record being a First Appellate Court – Keeping in mind that once trial court has convicted there shall not be presumption of innocence as would be there in the case of acquittal.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court
HELD: 1. 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. The High Court ought to have appreciated that it was dealing with the first appeal against the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. Being First Appellate Court, the High Court was required to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by the trial Court while convicting the accused. Non-re-appreciation of the evidence on record may affect the case of either the prosecution or even the accused. [Paras 6, 6.1][457-A-B, C-D]
2. An Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal passed by the trial Court, is required to bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. 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 re-appreciate the entire evidence on record being a First Appellate Court. Keeping in mind that once the Trial Court has convicted there shall not be presumption of innocence as would be there in the case of acquittal. [Para 6.2][457-E-F; 458-B-C]
Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. The State of Gujarat (1978) 1 SCC : [1978] 2 SCR 471 – referred to.
3. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court, showed that High Court decision was 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, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the respondentaccused without adverting to the reasons given by the 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. 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. The High Court ought to have 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. [Para 7][458-D-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.