1. Appeal against High Court order reversing Trial Court acquittal for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
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.
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.
Important Points
The view taken by the Trial Court should not be reversed unless it is not only erroneous but also unreasonable and perverse.
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeals and Reversals
Act Referred
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contentions regarding the validity of the Trial Court's acquittal and the High Court's subsequent reversal of the same. (Para 2 )
3. Trial Court's acquittal was based on a possible view that was neither perverse nor unreasonable, warranting no interference by the High Court. (Para 3 )
4. Reversal of acquittal is permissible only if the Trial Court's view is not only erroneous but also unreasonable and perverse. (Para 3 )
5. High Court order set aside — Trial Court judgment restored — Appeal allowed. (Para 4 , 6 )
6. Under what circumstances can an appellate court reverse a judgment of acquittal?
An appellate court may reverse an acquittal only if the view taken by the Trial Court is not only erroneous but also unreasonable and perverse. (Para 3 )
7. What is the legal consequence if a Trial Court's view in an acquittal is found to be a possible view?
If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view that is neither perverse nor unreasonable, it should not be reversed or interfered with by the appellate court. (Para 3 )
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.
