An acquittal can only be overturned if compelling reasons exist, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for clear errors in the trial court's judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 14.11.1990, passed by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sanchore in Cr. Case No. 22/1989, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence under Sections 408 & 477 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.05.1980, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Jalore submitted a written report at PS Chitalwana through post, with the allegations that the accused-respondents had committed embezzlement in the society. On the said report, Police registered the case against the accused-respondents for offence under Section 408 IPC and started investigation. During investigation, it was found that the accused-respondent No. 1 & 2 had embezzled Rs. 1791.67/- and Rs. 1900/- respectively. After investigation, police filed challan against the accused-respondents. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Sections 408 & 477 IPC was framed by the trial court against the accused-respondents, who denied the same and claimed trial.

3. During the course of trial, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

4. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 14.11.1990 acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence as mentioned earlier. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondents regarding commission of embezzlement in the society but the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 408 & 477 IPC. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondents ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 408 & 477 IPC.

6. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondents submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record.

8. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents from offence under Sections 408 & 477 IPC.

9. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant-State has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. The learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence. The order passed by the learned trial court is a detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court.

10. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : 2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

“An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”,for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored materi