Hon’ble Supreme Court Answers : On What Grounds Acquittal Can be Reversed?

Very recent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that reversal of acquittal can only be done if the Trial Court order is not only inaccurate but is also conserve and unreasonable.

A Bench of Justices Anirudha Bose and Vineet Saran made the observation in a criminal appeal filed against a Calcutta HC order that reversed the trial court’s acquittal order.

The top court opined that Trial Court’s view was neither unreasonable nor perverse and the High Court should not have interfered with it.

In this case, the High Court convicted the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act for taking a bribe.

The CBI was able to trap the accused by making the complainant give him marked notes as bribes which were later recovered from the accused.

Before the Apex Court, the appellant argued that the High Court should have appreciated the trial court’s finding that only the investigating officer was a witness in the case and no other person came forward.

The Supreme Court agreed with the contention and ruled that a trial court’s acquittal order could only be reversed if it is perverse or unreasonable and also erroneous.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.1645 OF 2021

(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.547 of 2018)

SUMAN CHANDRA APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent/CBI at length. We have also perused the judgment of the Trial Court dated 27.09.2006 whereby the appellant has been acquitted, as well as the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2017 reversing the judgment of the Trial Court and convicting the appellant with imprisonment for a period of one year and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/- for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Trial Court has given a detailed judgment giving several reasons for acquitting the accused, whereas the High Court subsumed its own view. It is well settled law that reversal of acquittal is permissible only if the view of the Trial Court is not only erroneous but also unreasonable and perverse.
3. In our considered 1 opinion, 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. For the aforesaid reason, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Trial Court. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has, on instructions, stated that in case the appellant claims reinstatement in service and the same is granted, the appellant shall not claim any back-wages. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is allowed.

                                                                                                                                  …….....................

                                                                                                                                  (VINEET SARAN)

                                                                                                                                   ………................... 

                                                                                                                                 (ANIRUDDHA BOSE)

New Delhi; December 16, 2021

 ITEM NO.20                                          COURT NO.9                                    SECTION II-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).547/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-12-2017 in CRA No.260 of 2007 passed by the High Court of Calcutta)

SUMAN CHANDRA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Respondent(s)

([SLP AGAINST PETITIONER NO. 1 VIZ.; JOYDEB GHATAK ABATED VIDE THIS COURT'S ORDER DATED 14.12.2021.] IA No. 177552/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 16-12-2021

This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

 For Appellant(s) :  Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. Ms. Anjali Rajput, Adv. Mr. Amogh Agrawal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Ms. Jahnvi Prakash, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Vyas, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. M.K. Maroria, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

                                                                                                                                      (ARJUN BISHT)

                                                                                                                                  COURT MASTER (SH)

                                                                                                                                   (PRADEEP KUMAR)

                                                                                                                                     BRANCH OFFICER

                                                                                                                      (Signed order is placed on the file)