Judgment :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2004 passed by the Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2002.

3. The facts have been set out in great detail in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

4. It appears that on 26.11.1997 Sub Inspector Abdul Salam received a secret information that in the evening of 25.11.1997 C. Ronald, appellant No. 1 herein, participated in a gambling. Some hundred rupees notes which were sought to be used by him in the gambling were not accepted by the co-gamblers on the ground that they were fake, whereafter Ronald left the place. He was searched by S.I. Abdul Salam and fake currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination were recovered from his chest pocket. Panchnama was prepared and he was arrested. During interrogation Ronald disclosed the name of other co-accused. One Arun disclosed the name of R. Anil Kumar, appellant No. 2 herein.

5. Disclosures made by Arun and Anil Kumar were also referred to in the impugned judgment. During the investigation 42 fake notes were recovered from the house of Ronald wrapped in a red handkerchief from inside a shoe. Each of these notes bore the same serial number. Some fake currency notes were given by Anil to Arun, who tore them up and threw them into a toilet, where these torn pieces were recovered from the septic tank.

6. The trial court acquitted the accused persons, but the High Court has reversed that judgment and convicted the accused persons.

7. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the trial court having taken a view and acquitted the appellants, the High Court ought not to have reversed the same. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in Shingara Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 12 SCC 758 [para 26], wherein it was observed :-

"... It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record but having done so, if it finds that the view taken by the trial court is a possible reasonable view of the evidence on record, it will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial court. Only in cases where the High Court finds that the findings recorded by the trial court are unreasonable or perverse or that the court has committed a serious error of law, or where the trial court had recorded its findings in ignorance of relevant material on record or by taking into consideration evidence which is not admissible, the High Court may be justified in reversing the order of acquittal..."

8. Mr. Shanti Bhushan has also shown us some other decisions which have taken the same view.

9. In this connection we would like to say that a judgment of a court of law should not be read as a Euclid's theorem nor as a provision in a statute, vide Bharat Petroleum Corporation vs. N.R. Vairamani, AIR 2004 S.C. 4778 (vide paragraphs 9 to 12), Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal University J.T. 2008 (8) S.C. 621, etc.

10. Section 386 (a) Cr.P.C. states that the appellate court may :

"in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be re-tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law".

11. A perusal of Section 386(a) Cr.P.C. shows that no restrictions have been placed by the Statute on the power of the appellate court to reverse an order of acquittal and convict the accused.

12. As observed by this court in Vemareddy Kumaraswamyreddy & Anr. vs. State of A.P. JT 2006(2) 361 (vide para 17) where the words were clear, there is no scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions.

13. In Union of India & Anr. vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 (vide para 14), it was observ