An appellate court must show substantial grounds and evidence to interfere with a trial court's acquittal; mere disagreement with the trial court's conclusions is not sufficient.

JUDGMENT :

G BASAVARAJA, J.

The Union of India has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore in C.C.No.431/2002 dated 03.05.2013.

2. The parties are the same rank and have advanced the same arguments.

3. The Brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 18.02.2002, as per the confessional statement of accused No.2, Munimara alias Narayanan, as lead by him, when a search was conducted at the Scrap Material and Waste Paper Shop, No.313, Manjunatha paper, Narasapura Layout, Vidyaranyapura Main Road, Bangalore. During the search, accused No.1- Muniswamy, was found in possession of 3 numbers of Computers, 4 numbers of HCL Keyboards, 2 numbers of Printers and 1 number of UPS-2KVA belonging to the Railways. Accused No.1 voluntarily produced the sale proceeds of Rs.10,000/–, being the amount received towards the sale of one printer belonging to the Railways, which had been stolen by Accused Nos.2 and 3 from the Railways i.e., P.R.S. Centre, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. The said articles is suspected to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained from the Railways and thereby, the accused have committed the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

4. The accused appeared before the Court and was enlarged on bail. The charge framed against the accused for the alleged commission of offences, which was read over and explained to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To support the case of the complainant, 14 witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-14 and 35 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.35. 4 material objects were also marked as MOs-1 to Mos-4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused totally denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

6. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged commission of offence under Section 3 (a) of RP(UP) Act, 1966. Being ggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, I have perused the materials placed before me. The trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of the RP (UP) Act, 1966. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

8. Sri R. Rangaswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in its right perspective. The trial Court has failed to draw proper inference from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Further, he would submit that the trial Court has failed to see that there are sufficient material available on record to prove the nexus between the accused and the commission of offence. The prosecution witnesses have supported the case and the stolen properties have been duly identified and the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused. However, the trial Court has acquitted the accused. On all these grounds, the learned High Court Government Pleader seeks to allow the appeal.

9. As per Order dated 13^th January, 2017, appeal abated against accused No.2/respondent No.2 herein, since he is no more. Sri T.H. Narayana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 absent and unrepresented. Hence, arguments on his behalf is taken as nil.

10. Having heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-S