SC Rules on Reversing Acquittals: Key Judgement Explained

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court has clarified that a trial court's acquittal judgement can only be overturned if it is deemed not only erroneous but also unreliable and perverse. This ruling came in a case where the Calcutta High Court had reversed an acquittal, convicting appellants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's view was reasonable and should not have been interfered with, highlighting the strict criteria for setting aside initial acquittals.

A bench of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Suman Chandra vs. CBI has reiterated what has been said time and again, that the judgement of acquittal passed by Trial Court can only be set aside in case the aforementioned order is “not only erroneous, but also unreliable and perverse”.
The bench comprising Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose made the above observation in a criminal appeal against the order of the Calcutta HC in which the Hon’ble Court, reversing the order of acquittal, had convicted the appellants under section 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In the instant case, a complaint was filed in the Anti-Corruption Branch of CBI, Kolkata where it was alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe for not implicating the complainant in a false case of a racket engaged in selling computerised railway reservation tickets. But the complainant had refused to do the same.
In pursuance of the complaint, CBI, in the presence of independent witnesses, laid a trap and coated the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate. The complainant was asked to pay the same to the appellant. CBI prepared a seizure list and the appellant’s hands were washed with the solution which turned pink.
The appellants argued that the Hon’ble HC failed to take note of the various observations of the Trial Court wherein the following facts were taken notice of, among others-

No other person present at the time of the making of the memo etc. were examined.
Articles were seized under two different seizure lists by two different officers, both of whom were not examined.
The officer making the post- trap memo was not examined.
A rough sketch map was allegedly prepared but was never brought before the Trial Court.”

The Hon’ble SC observed that the view taken by the HC was entirely possible, it was neither unreasonable nor perverse, and the same should not have been interfered with by the HC.

"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group