Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2479 (ALL)

State Of U. P. v. Devendra Kumar Sharma

2017-10-31

RAMESH SINHA, VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vivek Kumar Singh, J 1. Heard Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 and perused the record. 2. The instant Government Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the Special Judge anti-Corruption Act, Meerut in C.C. No.49 of 2000, under Sections 471, 409, 201, 466 I.P.C. and Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Civil Line, District Meerut, whereby the accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court for the offence. 3. Accused Deepchand died during the pendency of trial and the case has been abated against him vide order dated 23.08.2002. 4. The instant Government Appeal has been preferred only against accused Devendra Kumar Sharma and Indrajeet Singh. 5. In brief, the prosecution story is that vide letter no.9215 P/VIII-2-12(172)P/88 Grih (Police) Anubhag – 3, Lucknow, dated 18th January, 1989, of Sri Rohit Nadan Government of Uttar Pradesh, which is addressed to Sri RK Saxena, the then Director General of Police, Crime Branch Crime Investigation Department (CBCID), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh; a request has been made for investigation into the aforementioned matter to be conducted by the CBCID. Accordingly, the aforesaid investigation was carried out by the Crime Branch. 6. During investigation, the statements of Sri Jai Bhagwan, Lekhapal, Nagar Mahapalika, Meerut and Sri Ram Mohan Saxena, Sub Divisional Magistrate (Pargana Adhikari), Meerut were recorded by the Investigating Officer of the Branch; and with respect to khasra no. 4984 having area 19 biswa, the records were scrutinised. On the basis thereof Sri Jagjeet Singh Sirohi, the competent officer and Sri Devendra Kumar Sharma, Assistant Engineer, Sri Indrajeet Singh, Clerk, Urban Land Ceiling Office, Meerut and Deepchand s/o Baburam r/o Devinagar, Meerut, hatched a conspiracy together; and misusing their powers with an intent to extend undue benefit to Deepchand s/o Baburam r/o Jaidevi Nagar, Meerut and granted him permission to sell the land being khasra number 4984, which is the property of the Nagar Mahapalika, Meerut and placed under the category 10 for public, thus causing financial loss to the tune of lakhs to the Government and attempting to conceal the evidence by deliberately causing the government records to go missing for their private ends. 7. 7. Vide application dated 01.09.1980 of Sri Mukesh Gautam, member of working committee, Uttar Pradesh, offences u/s 465, 466, 471, 201 IPC and Section 13(d)(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, have been prima facie found to be constituted against Shri Jagjeet Singh Sirohi, competent officer, Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma, Assistant Engineer, Shri Indrajeet Singh, Clerk, Urban Land Ceiling Office, Meerut and Shri Deepchand s/o Baburam r/o Devinagar, Meerut. 8. Accordingly, first information report was lodged to register a case against the aforesaid accused persons. The investigation into the aforesaid offence was conducted whereupon it was found that around 50 years ago, Nagar Palika, Meerut had leased the land khasra no. 4984 measuring 19 biswa in favour of Sri Jwala Singh s/o Sri Nyadar Singh r/o Hanumanpuri, Meerut at the rate of Rs. 65 per square feet for agricultural purposes. After the death of Jwala Singh, the said leased land was registered in the name of Sri Baburam, and after the death of Sri Baburam the land in question came to be registered in the name of Deepchand in 1981. Sri Deepchand s/o Baburam r/o Devinagar locality in Meerut, in 1988, had submitted a declaration seeking the permission to sell the aforesaid land, on which record no. 1537 dated 15.01.1988 through letter no. 137 was issued. In the original record, Shri Jagjeet Singh Sirohi the then competent officer had ordered for the sale of aforesaid land. The record is missing from the office concerned. During the investigation into the aforesaid, it came to be known that the entry of the aforesaid land is under the category 10 in the records of tehsil Meerut, which the concerned person had no right to sell. 9. Hence, from the facts and evidences, it is clear that Jagjeet Singh Sirohi, the then Competent Officer; Devendra Kumar, the then Assistant Engineer; Inderjeet Singh, Peshkar, Urban Land Ceiling, Meerut and Deep Chand S/o Babu Ram R/o Devi Nagar, Meerut had by way of conspiracy and in order to illegally extend the benefits to Deep Chand permitted him to sell the said land, and caused the original file bearing no. 1527 to go missing from the office, so that the evidences could be destroyed. 1527 to go missing from the office, so that the evidences could be destroyed. During the investigation, it was found that Jagjeet Singh Sirohi, the then Competent Officer; Devendra Kumar, the then Assistant Engineer; Inderjeet Singh, Peshkar, Urban Land Ceiling, Meerut and Deep Chand S/o Babu Ram R/o Devi Nagar, Meerut had by way of conspiracy and in order to illegally extend the benefits to Deep Chand permitted him to sell the said land, and caused the original file bearing no. 1527 to go missing from the office, so that the evidences could be destroyed. From the investigation, the offences against Jagjeet Singh Sirohi, the then Competent Officer; Devendra Kumar, the then Assistant Engineer; Inderjeet Singh, Peshkar, Urban Land Ceiling, Meerut and Deep Chand S/o Babu Ram R/o Devi Nagar, Meerut are established under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 201 and 409 of IPC and Sections 13(d)(1) of The Prevention of Corruption Act. 10. In this way, a charge-sheet was filed against the aforesaid accused persons prima facie found to have committed the offences under Sections 468, 465 read with Sections 471, 409, 201, 466 of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act. 11. The accused persons Devendra Kumar Sharma, Inderjeet Singh and Deep Chand (since deceased) were summoned by the court and their arguments were heard on the questions of charges levelled against them under Sections 468, 465 read with Sections 471, 409, 201, 466 of IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the said charges were framed having found them constituted prima facie against them. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. The prosecution in its support examined PW-1 Padam Singh, Retired Inspector, CBCID, Meerut Division; PW-2 Kunwar Pal Singh; PW-3 Shriram Kashyap, PW-4 Constable Surendra Kumar Gaud; PW-5 Devraj Singh, Retired Inspector, CBCID; PW-6 Raj Kumar Yadav and PW-7 Constable Chandu Lal. 13. In the documentary evidences, the following have been submitted on behalf of the prosecution: A letter dated 25.03.91 being Ext. Ka-1 sent by the Inspector, Crime Branch, Crime Investigation Department, Meerut to the Incharge Inspector, PS Civil Lines, Meerut for registration of the case; A Photostat copy of nazul being Ext. Ka-2; A Charge-sheet against the accused persons being Ext. Ka-3; A Sanction for prosecution being Ext. Ka-4; Ext. Ka-1 sent by the Inspector, Crime Branch, Crime Investigation Department, Meerut to the Incharge Inspector, PS Civil Lines, Meerut for registration of the case; A Photostat copy of nazul being Ext. Ka-2; A Charge-sheet against the accused persons being Ext. Ka-3; A Sanction for prosecution being Ext. Ka-4; Ext. Ka-5 being the order dated 11.08.97 passed by the Director of the Directorate of Urban Land Ceiling, Uttar Pradesh, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow with respect to site map of the land at Khasra No. 4984; A letter being Ext. Ka-6 sent by the Sector Officer, Crime Branch, Crime Investigation Department, Uttar Pradesh, Meerut to the Director at Directorate of Urban Land Ceiling, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow; A Chik of Case Crime No. 104/91 against the accused persons being Ext. Ka-8 and A carbon copy of the report no. 44/17/20 being Ext. Ka-9. 14. Accused persons have stated u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that they have been falsely implicated and no offence has been committed by them. The witnesses have given false testimonies under departmental pressure. Ascertaining whether or not the land in question is covered under ceiling is not within the domain of the accused persons. For this work, Naib Tehsildar, Patwari, Kanoongo and Surveyor were posted. It was stated by accused Indrajeet that maintenance of files is not his work the files are sent to Ahlmad and thence to record room. A fake enquiry has been conducted and a false chargesheet has been submitted. Oral testimony of D.W. 1 Satish Chandra Saxena has been adduced on behalf of accused persons in their defence. 15. We heard learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for accused and perused the lower court record. 16. Learned A.G.A. submits that the trial Court has misread the evidence on record has acquitted the accused persons. It is further submitted that in the instant case, on the basis of oral testimonies of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution, the charges u/s 468, 465 read with 471, 409, 466 IPC and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused persons are proved. Permission for sale of the aforesaid nazul land was granted by accused Devendra Singh in collusion with the competent authority, thereby causing monetary loss of lakhs of rupees to the government. Permission for sale of the aforesaid nazul land was granted by accused Devendra Singh in collusion with the competent authority, thereby causing monetary loss of lakhs of rupees to the government. In the aforesaid records, forgery was committed by the accused and accused Indrajeet caused the said original file to go missing while it was peshkar's duty to keep the aforesaid file in safe custody but with intention to destroy evidence, the said file was misplaced by the accused persons. Thus, on the basis of oral and documentary evidences, charges u/s 468, 465 read with 471, 409, 201, 466 IPC and section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused persons are proved beyond reasonable doubt and it is necessary to punish the accused persons for the above-mentioned charges. 17. It was contended by the learned counsel for accused persons that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the criminal case in question. At that time accused Devendra and Indrajeet were posted as Assistant Engineer and Peshkar respectively. Jagjeet Singh Sirohi was the then competent authority who has not been prosecuted. Accused Deep Chandra has died during pendency of the case. Hence, the case stands abated against him. False charges has been framed against the accused persons. As a matter of fact, khasra no 4984 measuring 19 Biswansi is recorded in the name of Nagar Mahapalika. No permission was granted by the accused for sale of the aforesaid land and no such document was found during enquiry. A senior most officer who ascertains ceiling related matters is a competent officer. An Assistant Engineer is posted in his staff. No evidence is on record showing in what manner and by whom the land in question has been permitted to be sold. Even as per the prosecution's averment, the then competent officer Jagjeet Singh Sirohi had passed an order for sale of the said land but no such file is presented before the court. As per the prosecution's statement, the said records are misplaced from the concerned office. It was found in enquiry that the said land is recorded under category X, celling which was not within the rights of the concerned person. It was contended by the prosecution that the accused persons with intention to extend benefits to Deep Chandra granted permission for sale of said land by hatching a conspiracy. It was found in enquiry that the said land is recorded under category X, celling which was not within the rights of the concerned person. It was contended by the prosecution that the accused persons with intention to extend benefits to Deep Chandra granted permission for sale of said land by hatching a conspiracy. No evidence is available on record demonstrating that the original file had been misplaced by the accused persons. Hence, it is prima facie clear that the accused persons have no role in the said criminal case. The number of original file is also not known. There is no evidence showing that the said file was handed over to Peshkar Indrajeet. P.W.1 has produced no evidence on the basis of which it can be proved that the said file was handed over to Peshkar Indrajeet and it was misplaced by him. No evidence was presented by the prosecution showing how forgery was committed by the accused persons. No document has also not been presented as evidence through which forgery was committed. Criminal offence in question is stated to have been committed in 1988. Insofar as there is a question of sale of nazul land and such land is situated within 1500 metre, no N.O.C. is required for the purpose. However, since the said permission was granted by the competent officer, accused persons have no role in the criminal offence. No evidence has been presented in the charge-sheet as to how much monetary loss was caused to the government and in what manner. The witnesses presented before the court on behalf of the prosecution have failed to establish as to how the permission for sale of the aforesaid nazul land was granted by the accused persons; how the forgery was committed and how much monetary loss was caused to the government. In this circumstance, no charge stands proved against the accused persons and this warrants their acquittal. 18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the prosecution case, appraisal of evidence by the trial Court and the grounds of acquittal of the accused by the trial Court. 19. As for as aforesaid contentions adduced by learned counsels for both parties in respect of accused persons' role in the instant criminal case; at relevant point of time accused Devendra was posted as Assistant Engineer and Indrajeet was posted as peshkar. 19. As for as aforesaid contentions adduced by learned counsels for both parties in respect of accused persons' role in the instant criminal case; at relevant point of time accused Devendra was posted as Assistant Engineer and Indrajeet was posted as peshkar. Permission for sale of the land in question has not been granted by these accused persons; rather, it has been granted by the competent officer. But it is surprising that no permission for prosecuting the competent officer Jagdish Singh Sirohi in the criminal case has been granted. Accordingly, granting permission for sale of land in question by accused Devendra and Indrajeet by way of hatching a conspiracy does not seem reliable. Not only this but also the act of misplacing the file in the instant case could not be proved against the accused persons. Moreover, responsibility to maintain file related to said land has not been fixed. In this respect, if evidence of PW 1 Param Singh is perused, an enquiry of the criminal case in question is mentioned to have been carried out by the witness. But, this witness has not conducted a thorough enquiry in the instant case. The witness has stated in his cross examination: "A senior officer who ascertains ceiling related matters is a competent officer in the rank of P.C.S. or I.A.S. An Assistant Engineer is deputed in his staff. 20. It is pertinent to mention here that on the file in question getting misplaced, the facts related to carrying out its search, its reconstruction and fixing responsibility for the missing file are inter-related, which are supposed to be determined by the Head of Department. This witness has not conducted any enquiry in this regard as to who was responsible for maintenance of the said record. It is also not clearly mentioned whether accused Indrajeet and Devendra were related to the said file or not. This witness has failed to mention that on the said file having got misplaced, its enquiry was pending with which officer; responsibility for misplacement of the said file was fixed against which employee and what orders have been passed for reconstruction of the said file. In this regard, no enquiry has been conducted. This witness has stated: "Accused Indrajeet was posted as Peshkar in the court of the competent officer. 21. The duty of a Peshkar is to produce relevant files before the court during duty hours. In this regard, no enquiry has been conducted. This witness has stated: "Accused Indrajeet was posted as Peshkar in the court of the competent officer. 21. The duty of a Peshkar is to produce relevant files before the court during duty hours. After court hours, the Peshkar sends all the files to Ahlmad. The files which are decided are consigned to record office. It is correct that the files are consigned to record office. Ahlmad prepares a list whereof and send them to the record room. Then volunteered to say that there is much bungling in the record office and the files are accepted in back dates and even the records are caused to be changed. During the inquiry proceeding, it was not informed by the Competent Officer that the file related to this case had been got delivered at the record office. 22. In this way, from the aforesaid averments made by this witness, it is not established that the maintenance of the said file was the responsibility of the Peshkar Inderjeet and the said file was caused to be missed by him only. Not only this but also the impugned order passed by the Competent Officer to sell 19 Biswa land pertaining to Khasra No. 4984 is not available on record. In such a situation, it has even not been established if the said order was passed or not. 23. PW-2 Kunwar Pal Singh, who was at that time working on the post of Lekhpal with Meerut Municipal Corporation has only stated that Khasra No. 4984 measuring 19 Biswa was Nazul Land. Nobody had the right to sell that land. A true photo copy of the Nazul register being Ext. Ka-2 duly certified by the Sampatti Adhikari Dinesh Yadav has been produced before the court by this witness and the same has been proved to be in his handwriting under his signature. But it is surprising that the original register, in the said context, has not been brought before the court by this witness nor has any such evidence been produced, which may go to establish whether Dinesh Yadav is alive or dead; and under which circumstances the secondary evidence is being produced by him. In such a situation, the said photostat copy cannot be treated as admissible as an evidence. In such a situation, the said photostat copy cannot be treated as admissible as an evidence. During cross-examination, this witness has clearly said that he has not brought with him the original of Ext. Ka-2. Hence, in view of the evidence adduced by this witness, the aforesaid document does not deserve to be treated as established. 24. PW-3 Ram Dayal Kashyap at that time had been posted with the Office of Land Ceiling since 1990, which he had proved during his oral evidence. This witness had told that he had during interrogation informed that Deep Chand had given a declaration for permission to sell the land in question. Declaration No. 1527 despite being searched in the office was not found. Thereafter, this file was being searched from 1989 but the said file could not be made available. During cross-examination, this witness has also told that the files are recorded in a list for their transmission to the record keeper. When he took the charge, both these persons had been transferred. Hence, he could not get the list through which the files were sent. Hence, he could not tell when this file was made available in the record room. In this way, also from the aforesaid testimony of this witness, it is not established as to when the said file was sent to the record room and who caused the said file to go missing. Hence, the oral evidence of this witness does not go to benefit the prosecution case. 25. PW-4 Surendra Kumar Gaud is a formal witness by whom evidence has been produced in connection with the death of Deputy S.P., CBCID, Ratan Singh. 26. Evidence with respect to sanction for prosecution has been produced by PW-5 Devraj Singh. During cross-examination, this witness has stated, "During the investigation, he neither recorded anybody's statement nor took any paper into custody. Only sanction of prosecution has been established by this witness. 27. The secondary evidence has been adduced by PW-6 Shri Rajkumar Yadav, and it has been stated that he has been posted in the office of Shri Ram Vachan Verma, Director, Urban Land Ceiling Department, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow, and he has seen him writing and reading. The evidence with respect to the death of Shri Ram Vachan Verma has been adduced. 28. It has been endorsed in the FIR by PW-7 Shri Chandralal that Virendra Kumar had passed away. The evidence with respect to the death of Shri Ram Vachan Verma has been adduced. 28. It has been endorsed in the FIR by PW-7 Shri Chandralal that Virendra Kumar had passed away. He has proved this report to be in his writing and signature. No other evidence has been adduced by this witness. 29. Hence, from the evidences has been adduced before the court oral evidences of the aforesaid witnesses -it is not proved as to when order for the sale of the land, khasra no. 4984, has been passed by the competent officer; by whom the records with respect to the aforesaid order was caused to go missing; whose responsibility has been fixed consequent upon investigation with respect to the aforesaid records; and against whom action has been taken by the concerned department. The order in question, by which the said land is stated to have been sold is not available on record. It has also bean argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the accused Indrajeet that sanction has been granted against the accused persons under section 197 CrPC whereas the charges against the accused persons under the Anti-Corruption Act have been framed. Thus, it was necessary to provide evidence as per the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act. By perusal of records with respect to the aforesaid, it is self evident that it was necessary to grant sanction only under the Special Act under Section 26 of the General Clauses Act; and on this basis, the sanction for prosecution against the accused persons is illegal. 30. No evidence has been adduced by the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution as to what kind of fraud has been committed by the accused persons Devendra and Indrajeet by tinkering with which particular papers; and how benefit has been provided to Deepchand by hatching a conspiracy. Even on the basis of documentary evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid fact completely. The documents/papers produced by the prosecution have not been proved as per the law. No evidence has been produced as to how Deepchand has been benefited by fraud and conspiracy hatched by the accused persons, and also how much financial loss was caused to the Government. As per the prosecution, the land in question was first given to Shri Jwala Singh on lease at Rs. 65 per square feet. No evidence has been produced as to how Deepchand has been benefited by fraud and conspiracy hatched by the accused persons, and also how much financial loss was caused to the Government. As per the prosecution, the land in question was first given to Shri Jwala Singh on lease at Rs. 65 per square feet. After his death, the said land was registered in the name of Shri Baburam. After death of Shri Baburm, the said land was registered in the name of Shri Deepchand in 1987. For the sale of the said land, Shri Deepchand was granted permission vide letter no. 137 (sic), on 15-1-88 (sic), record no. 1537 (sic), on the basis of his declaration. As per the prosecution, the order, in the aforesaid document, was passed by the competent officer Shri Jagdish Singh Sirohi for the sale of the land; but the said record is missing. Definitely, the said land (sic), on the basis of the documents, is in the category of 10. Hence, the concerned person has no right to sell the land; but how and under which circumstances the order was issued by the competent officer Shri Jagdish Singh Sirohi for the sale of the said land is not clear because of the missing record. It is worth mentioning that no sanction has been granted by the government against the competent officer Shri Jagdish Singh Sirohi. After the investigation, a tehrir (written-complaint) has been filed at Civil Lines Police Station by PW-1 Shri Param Singh. With respect to the said land, the original record has not been made available to him; and if the said record is missing, then what kind of investigation has been carried out by him. No clarification thereof has been given by the prosecution, as the result of which it is clear that no investigation has been carried out by this witness. 31. With respect to the said document, no inquiry has been conducted by the witness in the record room; nor has any inquiry been conducted with Ahlmad, nor was conducted any inquiry with the record keeper; moreover, no inquiry has been conducted with the competent officer. It has been said by this witness that notice has been served, but no photocopy thereof has been put on record. It has been said by this witness that notice has been served, but no photocopy thereof has been put on record. In this way, how the conclusion has been drawn that the accused persons Devendra Kumar and Indrajeet, after hatching conspiracy, tried to benefit Shri Deepchand by way of fraud; and thus caused financial loss to the government. Hence, the evidence adduced by the witness is squarely immaterial; and on basis of this evidence, it would be unjustifiable to draw adverse inference against the accused persons. Accused Devendra Kumar was working on the post of Assistant Engineer. In the aforesaid matter, no evidence has been produced by the prosecution as to what role the accused had in the aforesaid occurrence, and no evidence has been produced in relation to the accused Indrajeet Singh having any right to keep the record with himself. Hence, on the basis of the evidence, no role of the accused persons is proved in the instant criminal offence. The person who is said to have passed the order for the sale of the said land has not been prosecuted in the instant case. Hence, no charge is established against the accused persons Devendra Kumar and Indrajeet Singh. 32. We are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. Learned counsel for the parties have invited our attention towards circumstances pointed out in the case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 under which the finding of acquittal may be interfered with by the Appellate Court. 33. The observations made in the aforesaid case was reiterated in a recent decision in Murugesan vs. State Through Inspector of Police (2012) 10 SCC 383 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the broad principles of law governing the power of the High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The summary of the relevant principles of law set out in para 21 of the judgment may be extracted hereinunder: "21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo Swarup Vs. King Emperor, (1933-34) 61 IA 398 : AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) is to be found in para 42 of the Report in Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 . A concise statement of the law on the issue that had emerged after over half a century of evolution since Sheo Swarup Vs. King Emperor, (1933-34) 61 IA 398 : AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) is to be found in para 42 of the Report in Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 . The same may, therefore, be usefully noticed below: "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (i) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (ii) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (iii) Various expressions, such as, ''substantial and compelling reasons', ''good and sufficient grounds', ''very strong circumstances', ''distorted conclusions', ''glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ''flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (iv) An appellate court, however, must 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 reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (v) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 34. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (v) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 34. Keeping in view of the aforesaid settled position of law while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, we have delved into the evidence available on record and have come to the conclusion that the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial court is fully borne out by the evidence on record and the view taken by the learned trial Judge is equally 'a possible view'. 35. Having considered the totality of the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused-respondents is perverse or unreasonable. 36. We are of the opinion that the trial Judge has committed no illegality in recording the finding of acquittal, hence, no interference is called for in the judgment and order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the trial Court. 37. In view of the above, we are of opinion that neither the ground taken in the appeal nor the arguments advanced in support thereof are substantiated from the record. 38. Accordingly, we reject the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The appeal is without substance and hence it is dismissed.