STATE OF GUJARAT versus BHALCHANDRA LAXMISHANKAR DAVE

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 02-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
453
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 453
453
STATE OF GUJARAT
v.
BHALCHANDRA LAXMISHANKAR DAVE
(Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 02, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Appeal: Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference –
Conviction of respondent-accused by trial court u/s.7 r/w ss.13(1)
and (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act – Acquittal by High Court
– On State’s appeal, held: High Court made general observations
on the depositions of the witnesses examined – However, there was
no re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record in detail, which
ought to have been done by High Court while dealing with order of
conviction passed by trial court – High Court ought to have
appreciated that it was dealing with first appeal against order of
conviction passed by trial court – Being the First Appellate Court,
High Court ought to have re-appreciated the entire evidence on
record without any limitation, which might be there while dealing
with an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by trial court
– High Court was dealing with the offences under the Prevention
of Corruption Act which offences are against the society and,
therefore, High Court ought to have been more careful and have
gone in detail – Matter remitted to High Court for consideration
afresh in accordance with law.
Appeal: Power of High Court to deal with appeal against
conviction and appeal against acquittal – Distinction between –
Held: An Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal passed by trial court is required to 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 trial court – Therefore, while dealing
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
with the cases of acquittal by trial court, the Appellate Court would
have certain limitations – However, so far as appeal against order
of conviction is concerned, there are no such restrictions and the
Court of appeal has wide powers of appreciation of evidence and
the High Court to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record being
a First Appellate Court – Keeping in mind that once trial court has
convicted there shall not be presumption of innocence as would be
there in the case of acquittal.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court,
the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has not strictly proceeded in
the manner in which High Court ought to have while dealing with
the appeal against the order of conviction. The High Court ought
to have appreciated that it was dealing with the first appeal against
the order of conviction passed by the trial Court. Being First
Appellate Court, the High Court was required to re-appreciate
the entire evidence on record and also the reasoning given by
the trial Court while convicting the accused. Non-re-appreciation
of the evidence on record may affect the case of either the
prosecution or even the accused. [Paras 6, 6.1][457-A-B, C-D]
2. An Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal passed by the trial Court, is required to bear in mind
that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. However, so far as the appeal against the order of
conviction is concerned, there are no such restrictions and the
Court of appeal has wide powers of appreciation of evidence and
the High Court has to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record
being a First Appellate Court. Keeping in mind that once the
Trial Court has convicted there shall not be presumption of
innocence as would be there in the case of acquittal. [Para
6.2][457-E-F; 458-B-C]
Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. The State of Gujarat (1978) 1
SCC : [1978] 2 SCR  471 – referred to.
3. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the High Court, showed that High Court decision was
based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
455
legal position. The approach of the High Court in dealing/non-
dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave
miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court acquitting the

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