An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment if the trial court's view is legally plausible and the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the criminal offenses beyond reasonable doubt, following the principle that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

Judgment on Board

Per, Rajani Dubey, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against the judgment dated 18.07.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Durg, District- Durg in Special Case No. 01/2001, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 of the charges under Sections 120 (B), 420 and 467 of IPC and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and respondent No. 2 acquitted of offence under Sections 120 (B), 420 and 467 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the complainant- Basarat Khan, an offence bearing Crime No. 40/1999 came to be registered by the Special Police Establishment, Bhopal against the present respondents/accused persons. It was alleged in the complaint that the respondents, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and in collusion with other co-accused persons, had illegally and fraudulently sold the land belonging to Chhattisgarh Vikas Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti situated at Village Padumnagar, Charoda, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh), admeasuring 6.53 acres to about 14 purchasers. The prosecution case is that the said land was wrongfully represented and shown as agricultural land, despite the fact that it belonged to the said cooperative society and could not have been legally transferred in the manner in which it was done. By misrepresenting the nature and status of the land and abusing their official position, the accused persons allegedly facilitated the illegal sale, thereby causing wrongful loss to the society and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves and the purchasers. On the basis of the said complaint, the Special Police Establishment registered the aforementioned crime and initiated investigation into the matter. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency collected relevant documentary evidence, records relating to the land in question and statements of witnesses. Upon scrutiny of the material so collected, the investigating agency found prima facie involvement of the present respondents in the commission of the alleged offences. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the learned Special Court against the respondents/accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge, after conducting the trial and upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted accused/respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 of the charges under Sections 120-B, 420 and 467 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and acquitted respondent No. 2 of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 467 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, the State/Appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment and seeking reversal of the order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and facts on record and therefore the same