Page 186 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

720 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the find-
ing of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
13. The Apex Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa [2019 (5) SCC 418]
has explained the word “perverse” in terms as understood in law for this Court
to interfere in an order of acquittal. Paragraph 31 of the said judgment reads as
under :
13. This Court had occasion to consider the expression “perverse” in
Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh through Sec-
retary, (2009) 10 SCC 636, this Court held that although High Court can re-
appraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial court but judg-
ment of acquittal can be interfered with only judgment is against the weight
of evidence. In Paragraph No. 14 following has been held :-
“14. We have considered the arguments advanced and heard the
matter at great length. It is true, as contended by Mr. Rao, that inter-
ference in an appeal against an acquittal recorded by the trial court
should be rare and in exceptional circumstances. It is, however, well
settled by now that it is open to the High Court to reappraise the
evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial court but only in a case
when the judgment of the trial court is stated to be perverse. The
word “perverse” in terms as understood in law has been defined to
mean “against the weight of evidence”. We have to see accordingly
as to whether the judgment of the trial court which has been found
perverse by the High Court was in fact so. ”
14. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in
favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to the ac-
cused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every per-
son shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured acquittal, the presumption of
their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial
Court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court observed that the prosecution had
failed to prove its case.
15. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the Trial Court
cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal,
in my view, cannot be interfered with.
16. I have to also note that the judgment impugned is dated 17th Janu-
ary, 2001. More than 19 years have passed since the acquittal. Since, I do not find
any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment.
17. Appeal dismissed.

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  186