Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 1138

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VINEET SARAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Suman Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1645 of 2021, SLP (Criminal) No. 547 of 2018
Decided On : 16-12-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Mr. Rakesh Singh, Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Mr. Sumit Sinha, Ms. Anjali Rajput, Mr. Amogh Agrawal.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Mr. Prashant Rawat, Ms. Jahnvi Prakash, Mr. B.K. Satija, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Mr. Shekhar Vyas, Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Mr. M.K. Maroria, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma.

The view taken by the Trial Court should not be reversed unless it is not only erroneous but also unreasonable and perverse.

Headnote:
Reversal of Acquittal - Prevention of Corruption Act - 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
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was acquitted by the Trial Court, but the High Court reversed the judgment and convicted the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Trial Court, emphasizing that the view taken by the Trial Court was reasonable and should not have been interfered with.
Issues: The main issue was the permissibility of reversing the acquittal by the High Court and the reasonableness of the Trial Court's view.
Ratio Decidendi: The reversal of acquittal is permissible only if the view of the Trial Court is not only erroneous but also unreasonable and perverse.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Trial Court was restored.

ORDER :

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.

3. 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. In our considered 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.

4. For the aforesaid reason, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Trial Court.

5. 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.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document