2021 INSC 0046
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.99 OF 2021
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9105 of 2015]
State of Gujarat .. Appellant
Versus
Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave .. Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
Leave granted.
2. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the High Court of
Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2003 by which the High Court
has   acquitted   the   respondent   herein   –   original   accused   for   the
offences   under   Section   7   read   with   Sections   13(1)   &   13(2)   of   the
Prevention of Corruption Act  (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by

2
quashing   and   setting   aside   the   judgment   and   order   of   conviction
passed by the Learned Special Judge, Bharuch, the State of Gujarat
has preferred the present appeal.
3. The respondent herein – original accused (hereinafter referred
to   as   ‘the   accused’)   who   was   working   as   Assistant   Director   in   ITI,
Gandhi   Nagar   was   charged   for   the   offences   punishable   under
Section 7 read with Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act.
3.1 The   Learned   Special   Judge,   Bharuch   after   full­fledged   trial
and   appreciation   of   the   entire   evidence   on   record   and   by   detailed
judgment   and   order   convicted   the   accused   under   Section   7   read
with Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act.  The Learned Special Judge
held the accused guilty and convicted the accused for the aforesaid
offences   and   imposed   the   sentence   of   5   years   imprisonment   and
with fine of Rs.10,000/­.
3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Special Judge in
Special   A.C.B.   Case   No.14/2000   ­   the   accused   preferred   appeal
before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2003.  By the

3
impugned judgment and order, the High Court without any detailed
re­appreciation   of   the   entire   evidence   on   record,   has   acquitted   the
accused for the offences for which he was convicted.
4. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court, the State
of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal.
5. We   have   heard   Ms.   Deepanwita   Priyanka,   Learned   Advocate
appearing on behalf of State of Gujarat and Shri J.S. Attri, Learned
Senior   Advocate   and   Shri   Haresh   Raichura,   Learned   Advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent – accused.
5.1. Number   of   submissions   have   been   made   by   learned   counsels
of   the   respective   parties.     However,   for   the   reasons   stated   herein
below,   we   propose   to   remand   the   matter   to   the   High   Court,   any
observation made by this Court may affect either the prosecution or
the defence, we refrain from dealing with the submissions made by
the   Learned  counsels   appearing  on   behalf   of   the  respective  parties
on merits.

4
6. We   have   gone   through   the   detailed   judgment   and   order   of
conviction passed by the Learned Trial Court and also the evidence
on  record laid down  by  the prosecution  as well as the defence. We
have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed
by   the   High   Court   to   ascertain   whether   the   High   Court   has
conformed to the principles while exercising in the criminal  appeal
against   the   judgment   and   order   of   conviction.     We   find   that   the
High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner in which High
Court ought to have while dealing with the appeal against the order
of   conviction.     On   perusal   of   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   of
acquittal passed by the High Court, we find that, as such, there is
no   re­appreciation   of   the   entire   evidence   on   record   in   detail   while
acquitting   the   respondent   –   accused.     The   High   Court   has   only
made   general   observations   on   the   depositions   of   the   witnesses
examined.     However,   there   is   no   re­appreciation   of   the   entire
evidence on record in detail, which ought to have been done by the
High Court while dealing with the judgment and order of conviction
passed by the Learned Trial Court.

5
6.1 The High Court ought to have appreciated that it was dealing
with   the   first   appeal   against   the   order   of   conviction   passed   by   the
Learned   trial   Court.     Being   First   Appellate   Court,   the   High   Court
was required to re­appreciate the entire evidence on record and also
the reasoning given by the Learned trial Court while convicting the
accused.   Non­re­appreciation of the evidence on record may affect
the   case   of   either   the   prosecution   or   even   the   accused.     Being   the
First   Appellate   Court   the   High   Court   ought   to   have   re­appreciated
the   entire   evidence   on   record   without   any   limitation,   which   might
be there while dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal
passed by the Learned Trial Court.
6.2 An   Appellate   Court   while   dealing   with   an   appeal   against
acquittal   passed   by   the   Learned   trial   Court,   is   required   to   bear   in
mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour
of the accused.  Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that
every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty   by   a   competent   court   of   law.     Secondly,   the   accused   having
secured   his   acquittal,   the   presumption   of   his   innocence   is   further

6
reinforced,   reaffirmed   and   strengthened   by   the   trial   Court.
Therefore,   while   dealing   with   the   cases   of   acquittal   by   the   trial
Court, the Appellate Court would have certain limitations.   Even in
the case of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court, in the case
of   Umedbhai  Jadavbhai vs. The State of Gujarat , (1978) 1 SCC
228, it is observed and held by this Court that “Once the appeal is
entertained against the order of acquittal, the High Court is entitled
to   re­appreciate   the   entire   evidence   independently   and   come   to   its
own   conclusion.     Ordinarily,   the   High   Court   would   give   due
importance   to   the   opinion   of   the   Sessions   Judge   if   the   same   were
arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence.  The High Court
would be justified against an acquittal passed by the Learned Trial
Court even on  re­appreciation  of the entire evidence independently
and   come   to   its   own   conclusion   that   acquittal   is   perverse   and
manifestly   erroneous”.     However,   so   far   as   the   appeal   against   the
order of conviction is concerned, there are no such restrictions and
the Court of appeal has wide powers of appreciation of evidence and
the   High   Court   has   to   re­appreciate   the   entire   evidence   on   record
being   a   First   Appellate   Court.     Keeping   in   mind   that   once   the

7
Learned Trial Court has convicted there shall not be presumption of
innocence as would be there in the case of acquittal.
7. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the High Court, we find that High Court decision is based
on   totally   erroneous   view   of   law   by   ignoring   the   settled   legal
position.     The   approach   of   the   High   Court   in   dealing/non­dealing
with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of
justice.       Therefore,   we   are   of   the   firm   opinion   that   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   acquitting   the
respondent – accused without adverting to the reasons given by the
Learned   trial   Court   while   convicting   the   accused   and   without   re­
appreciating   the   entire   evidence   on   record   in   detail   cannot   be
sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.   We
are of the opinion that therefore matter deserves to be remanded to
the   High   Court   to   consider   and   deal   with   the   appeal   afresh   in
accordance   with   law   and   on   its   own   merits   keeping   in   mind   the
observations   made   hereinabove.     The   High   Court   ought   to   have

8
appreciated   that   it   was   dealing   with   the   offences   under   the
Prevention of Corruption Act which offences are against the society.
And therefore the High Court ought to have been more careful and
ought   to   have   gone   in   detail.     We   do   not   approve   the   manner   in
which the High Court has dealt with the appeal.
8. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   hereinabove
and without expressing anything on merits of the case, the present
appeal   is   allowed.   The   impugned   judgment   and   order   dated
12.01.2015   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.92   of   2003   passed   by   the   High
Court   acquitting   the   accused   for   the   offences   under   the   Act   for
which   he   was   tried   is   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.     The   appeal
before the High Court is restored to its original file.  The High Court
to decide and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law and on
its own merits bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove.
At   the   cost   of   repetition   we   observe   that   we   have   not   expressed
anything   on   merits   in   favour   of   either   prosecution   or   even   the

9
accused and the High Court to decide and dispose of the appeal on
its own merits as observed hereinabove.
.……………………………J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
…………………………… J.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY)
…………………………… J.
(M. R. SHAH)
New Delhi,
February 2, 2021.