Impetuous handling of evidences can cause grave miscarriage of justice: Supreme Court
The approach of the Court in dealing with evidences must be of such nature that it does not result in grave miscarriage of justice. The High Court ought to be careful and vigilant while dealing with the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act as they are the offences against the society. This assertion was made by the Honorable Supreme Court of India by a three judge bench of J. Ashok Bhushan, J. Subhash Reddy and J. M.R. Shah in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.99 OF 2021]. In the instant case, High Court of Gujarat in a Criminal Appeal acquitted the respondent herein original accused for the offences under Section 7 r/w Sections 13(1) &amp; 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Learned Special Judge, Bharuch, Gujarat has preferred the present appeal. The respondent herein original accused who was an Assistant Director in ITI, Gandhi Nagar was charged for the offences. The 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. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Special Judge, the accused preferred appeal before the High Court.  By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court without any detailed re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, acquitted the accused. 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.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned has acquitted the respondent herein original accused for the offences under Section 7 read with Sections 13(1) & 13(2) of the quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Learned Special Judge Bharuch the State of Gujarat Gandhi Nagar was charged for the offences punishable under 3.1 The Learned Special Judge Bharuch after full­fledged trial judgment and order convicted the accused under Section 7 read offences and imposed the sentence of 5 years imprisonment and Special A.C.B. Case No.14 2000 ­ the accused preferred appeal Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned 5. We have heard Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka Learned Advocate Senior Advocate and Shri Haresh Raichura Learned Advocate of the respective parties. However for the reasons stated herein below we propose to remand the matter to the High Court any 6. We have gone through the detailed judgment and order of by the High Court to ascertain whether the High Court has against the judgment and order of conviction. We find that the acquittal passed by the High Court we find that as such there is 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 Learned trial Court. Being First Appellate Court the High Court An Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly the accused having reinforced reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court Therefore while dealing with the cases of acquittal by the trial own conclusion. Ordinarily the High Court would give due and come to its own conclusion that acquittal is perverse and manifestly erroneous”. However so far as the appeal against the being a First Appellate Court. Keeping in mind that once the on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal justice. Therefore we are of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the Learned trial Court while convicting the accused and without re­ appreciating the entire evidence on record in detail cannot be 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 appreciated that it was dealing with the offences under the ought to have gone in detail. We do not approve the manner in appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated Court acquitting the accused for the offences under the Act for At the cost of repetition we observe that we have not expressed anything on merits in favour of either prosecution or even the