criminal Appeal Under section 378 (1) &(3) of cr.P.c against the order dated - 24-06-2008 in crl.A. No. 94 / 2OO7 0n the file of the court of the ll Additional Ivletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Between: The state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...APELLANT/PETITIONER AND l.K.ShyamRao,S/o.LateVenkataRaoR/o.1-8-T24lA,VegetableMarketRoad' Nallakunta, 2.Kumar,S/o.RajaiahR/o.H.No.6-3-1184-B,NGO'sColony,Vanasthalipuram' 3. Smt. Rabia sultana, w/o. Ir/d. lrsha-ul-Haq lssue clerk PJo. H.No. 356, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENTS/ACCUSED Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRl. H SUOHAKARA RAO The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 412 OF 2010 This appeat is directed against the judgment of acquittat dated 24.06.2008 recorded by the ll Additionat Metropotitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Criminat Appeat No.94 of 2007 for the offences punishabte under Sections 409,420,46g and 471 of LP.C. The appettant is the State. The case of the prosecution is that A-.1 to A-3 have misappropriated the amount at Stationery Wing, Hyderabad. A_.1 to A-3 used three types of Modus Operandi to commit the misappropriation i.e., (1) Excess debiting (2) Direct debiting and (3) Excess deduction. The triat Court framed charges against A-1 to A-3 for the offences punishabte under Sections 409, 420,46g and 471 of l.p.C. Ptea of the accused is one of totat denial.. To prove the guitt of the accused, the prosecution has examined p.Ws.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P1 to p85. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behatf of the accused. On considering the entire material avaitabte on record, the trail court, vide judgment in c.c.No.27g of 1999 dated 26.02.2007, found A-'l to A-3 guitty of the offences pun.ishabte under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 420 of l.p.C. and consequentty convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each,in defautt to suffer simpte imprisonment HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 412 of 2010 JUDGMENT: 2 for a period of one month each for each offence under Sections 4Og, 468, 471 and420 of l'P'C' and att the sentences shalt run concurrentty. Aggrieved by the said judgment' A-1 to A'3 preferred Crt'A'No'94 of 2OO7 and that the ll Additionat Metropotitan Sessions Judge' Hyderabad' by judgment' dated 24.06.2008, after re'appreciating the entire material on record' hetd that the prosecution faited to estabtish the guitt of A-'l to A'3 beyond att reasonabte doubt and accordingty acquitted A-1 to A-3' Against the said judgment of acquittal the State preferred the Present aPPeal" Heard tearned Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor for the appettant and the learned Counset for the respondents/accused' ln case of appeat against acquittat the scope of appeat is circumscribed by timitation' Untess the approach of lower Court to the consideration of evidence is vit'iated by manifest ittegatity or conctusion arrived at by the lower Court 'is perverse' no interference with the order of acquittat is permissibte' ln ,llrinol Dos Vs' Stute of Tripurol the Apex Court hetd as under: It is ctear that in an appeat against acquittat in the absence of perversity in the iudgment und o'd"" interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction' is not 'warranted' However, if the appeat is nearO by an appettate court' being the final court of fact, is ful,ty competent to re- appreciate'-reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision' ln other words' taw does not prescribe any timitation' restriction or condition on I (201 l) 9 scc 479 exercise of such power and the appettate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittat provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is avaitabte to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent untess he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonabte views are possibte on the basis of the evidence on record, the appettate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no [imitation on the part of the appettate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittat is found and to come to its own conctusion. The appettate court can atso review the conctusion arrived at by the triat Court with respect to both facts and law. White deating with the appeat against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appettate court to marshat the entire evidence on record and onty by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittat. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with onty when there are "competting and substantial reasons" for doing so. lf the order is "ctearty unreasonabte", it is a compelting reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents tike dying declaration / report of batlistic experts etc., the appettate court is competent to reverse the decision of the tria[ Court depending on the materjals ptaced. ln tAaloth Somoraju Vs. State of Andhro Pradesh2 the Apex Court hetd that there can be no two opinions that merety because the acquittat is found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appettate Court has more and serious responsibitity white deat'ing with the judgment of acquittat and untess the acquittat is found to be perverse or not at att supportabte and where the appettate Court comes to the conctusion that conviction is a must, the judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has to examine as '(2on) 8 scc 635 _) -t to whether the triat Court, white upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care. I have gone through the evidence and the judgments of the Courts betow. The triat Court mainty retied on Ex'P2 which is the enquiry report of P.W.2. In the cross-examination, P'W'2 has categoricatty admitted that most of the receiving officers are not examinedandsomeofthewitnesses,whoarethereceiving officers, did not state about the compticity of any of the accused' P.W.2furtherstatedthattheGovernmentatthefirstinstance appointed Mr'Meera Moinuddin, Speciat Grade Deputy Cottector' Revenue Department to enquire about the irregutarities and misappropriation, pointed out in the audit report and that he had submitted his report. But for the reasons best known' the prosecution did not choose either to examine the said Meera Moinuddin or produce the enquiry report submitted by him' Non- production of the Enquiry Officer, who has submitted the report at the first instance, and the Enquiry submitted by him' is fatat to the case of the prosecution and that there is no proper explanation from the prosecution as to why they suppressed the said fact' ln view of the Judgments referred to above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case' I am of the view that there is no ittegatity or perversity in the findings of the lower appettate Court and that there is nothing to interfere and the same is tiabte to be dismissed. 5 Accordingty, the appeat is djsmissed confirming the judgment dated 24.06.2008 passed in Crt.A.No.94 of 2007 on the file of the ll Additional, Metropotitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. As a sequel thereto, Miscettaneous Petitions, if any, pending shat[ stand closed. \ //TRUE COPY// sD/-c VJ:JSFiEE|ITHhH .(L'- SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge' Hyderabad 2 Two ccs to public prosecutor, High court for the State of rerangana at HYderabad [OUT] 3. One CC to SRI H SUDHAKARA RAO' Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies CDL gbr 4.\l). I HIGH COURT DATED:1210212021 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.412 of 2010 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL. 06 t,lAB 2021 o * oo 1)AA P^.r TA S rcf H *