The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn acquittals if the trial court's findings are perverse or unsupported by reasonable conclusions.

JUDGMENT :

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

1.Heard Mr. Shinde, learned APP for the Appellant – State and Ms. Rukmini Khairnar, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7.

2. By the present Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Judgment and Order dated 23^rd May 2002 passed by the learned JMFC, IInd Court, Thane in RCC No.105 of 1994. By the impugned Judgment and Order the Accused have been acquitted under Section 248 of CrPC for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 471 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

3. The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph Nos.2 to 4 of the impugned Judgment and Order of the learned Trial Court, which reads as under :-

“2. In brief the facts of the prosecution case are as under:-

Complainant namely Arun Shinde was working as an Administrative Officer in the Bayer India Company. In the year, 1992, the accused no.1 Dwarika Prasad Sitaram Mishra was secretary and accused no.2 Dayanand was Chairman, accused no.3 Ramchandra was a Treasurer, accused nos. 4 & 5 were the Accountants and the accused nos. 8 to 14 are the members of the Bayer India Credit Co-operative Society, Thane. The accused persons were looking after the affairs of the company. Being a office bearers of the company, loan used to be given to the members for purchasing domestic articles. Account of every years Credit Co-operative Society used to get audited every years by Auditor. During the period 1/7/1990 to 31/3/1992. Special Auditor Shri. More did the Audit of the Company. As per the said Audit, an amount which was actually deposited with the Society was found to be less. In the year 1993, Shri. More took Audit of the Credit Co- operative and found that Rs.42,81,749/- is less in comparison with the deposit made to the Society. In the month of August 1992, every person of Bayer India Company came to know about the difference in the account of the Bayer India Credit Co-operative Society. Therefore, complainant lodged report Exh.108 in pol.stn. Kapurbawadi.

3. On the strength of this report Exh. 108, the offence vide C.R.No. I-178/92 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 406, 468, 472 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in pol.stn. Kapurbawadi.

4. During the investigation, specimen signature and Handwriting of the accused persons were obtained. Same were sent before Handwriting expert for talling the same with the written made by the accused in the record. The accused Dwarika Prasad has also executed written Stamp Paper and Cheque in favour of company stating therein to repay the amount to the company. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After obtaining report from Handwriting Expert Sr.P.I. Kapurbawadi has filed chargesheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable U/Section 406, 468, r.w. 149 of I.P.C.”

4. During the trial the prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The learned Trial Court after analysis of the evidence on record held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court therefore acquitted all the Accused by giving them benefit of doubt.

5. Before consideration of the merits, it is necessary to set out legal position concerning the approach of the Appellate Court while dealing with the Appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court in the recent decision in the case of Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 8 SCC 149in Paragraph Nos.39, 40 and 41 has discussed the legal position in that behalf as under :-

“39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29

“29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while deali