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