M. G. AGARWAL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1963] 2 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 24-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
M. G. AGARWAL 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
40f> 
(H. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. 
WANOHOO, N. RAJAGOPALAAYYANGAR a.nd 
T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) 
Appeal Against Acquittal-.Prtll'Umptirm of innocence-
Pawer of High Oourt-Ormviction, when can ~e based on circum· 
8lantial _evidence-Gode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V 
of 1898), 8. 423 (1) (a) Indian Peno! Corle, 1860 (Acl S.LV of 
18611), 8. 120B. 
Appellant Agarwal was an Income Tax Officer and 
appellant Kulkarni, a clerk under him. They were put up for 
trial along with another clerk of the Department on several 
charge the principal charge being that they had entered into a 
criminal conspiracy to 
obtain for theinsclves . pecuniary 
advantage in the form of income-tax refund orders in the 
name of fictitious persons and had thereby fraudulently mis· 
appropriated a large amount of Government money. The trial 
Judge held tha\ the prosecution had failed to establish crimi· 
nal conspiracy and acquitted the appellants of the charge under 
•· 120B and the second appellant of all other l!hargcs under 
the Indian Penal Code but while acquitting the third person 
also under s. 120B, convicted him of other offends as he had 
pleaded guilty. The State appealed against this order of 
acquittal. The High Court allowed the appeal in part and 
convicted all the accused persons under s. 120B of the Code 
and the second appellant also under the other charges. 
Held, that there was no doubt that the powers of the 
High Court under s. 423 (l) (a) of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure in.dealing with an order of acquittal were as wide 
as those under s. 423 ( l) (b) in respect of orders of conviction; 
but in dealing with an appeal against acquittal that court had 
to bear in mind the fact that the initial premmption of 
innocence in .favour of the accused person is strengthened by 
the order of acquittal; But however cautious or circumspect 
the court might be, it was, 11everthclcss, free to arrive at its 
own conclusions as to the guilt or innocence of the acciised on 
the evidence adduc_ed before it by the prosecution. 
Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor ,(1934) L. R, 61 I. A. 398 
and Nur Mohammad v, Empuor, A.I.R. 1945 P. C. 151, 
referred to. 
1962 
Apil 24 
M .G. At-'ttcal 
.. 
Stolt of 
Mah r41J1tro 
406 
SUPREME ClOl·RT REPORTS [1963] 
Obcsrvations made on this point in certain decided 
cases of this Cout t were not intended to Jay down a rigid or 
inflexible rule that should govern all such appeals and it is 
not necessary that the High Court must characterise the 
findings as perverse, before it can reverse a judgment of 
acquittal. 
Surajpal Singh v. The State; [1952) S.C.R. 193 and 
Ajmt1' Singh v. State of Pu11iab, [1953[ S.C.R. 418, consi-
dered. 
Sanwaf Singh v. Stal< of Raja.than, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 120 
and Harbans Singh'" Sial< nf Punjab, [1962] Supp. I S. C.R. 
I 04 referred to. 
It was settled law that a conviction can be reasonably 
founded on circumstantial cvidenct' if it is wholly inconsistent 
with the innocence of the accused and 
Consistent only 
with his guilt. 
If the circum$lances proved are consis-
tent citbcr with innocence or guilt, the accused person 
i~ 
entitled to the benefit of doubt. 
But in applying this 
principle a distinction must be made bctwe~n primary facts 
which have to he proved in the ordinary way and the in-
ference of guil1 to be drawn therefrom. It is in connection 
with the latter aspect of the problem that the doctrine of 
benefit of doubt can apply and an inference of guilt can be 
drawn only if the proved facts arc wholly inconsistent with 
innocence, and consistent only with guilt. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 176 of 1959 and 40 of 1960. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment 
and f'rder dated August 21i, 1959, of the Bombay 
High Court, in Cr. A. No. 1638 of 1!158. 
A. S. R. Chari, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur 
and Ravinder Na.rain, for the appellant (in Cr. A. 
No. 176 of5!1). 
Frenny Parekh and K. R. Clwudhri, for t'1 
ap!>eliant (in Cr. A. No. 40 of 60). 
Jai Oopal Sethi, R. f,. Mehta and R. H. Dh.ehar, 
for the respondents. 
I 962. April 24. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
GAJDDl!AGADKAR, J.-A c1iminal conspiracy 
to 'Which, ocoordiDg w tbe 'PfOBecDtion, M. G. Agarwal 
' 
' . 
,\ 
s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
407 
' 
M. K; Kulkarni and }'IT. Laxminarayan, hereafter cal-
led acoused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, were parties 
be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.