A JAYARAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the aforesaid appeals were heard analogously because the criminal proceedings instituted against the appellants in these appeals, being the officers of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh and dealers of fertilizers in the State of Andhra Pradesh related to an alleged scandal in transporting imported fertilisers from the ports of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh to different destinations in the State of Andhra Pradesh. A tabular statement indicating the numbers of the appeals in this Court, corresponding numbers of the appeals in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and corresponding numbers of the criminal cases in the trial Court out of which the appeals in the High Court arose is given below : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_333_SUPP3_1995Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) IT may be indicated here that the appellants in 11 appeals before this Court namely Criminal Appeals Nos. 308 to 317 of 1989 are the officers of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh and all the appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos. 163, 165,166, 184 and 185 are dealers in fertilisers and in Criminal Appeals Nos. 164 of 1994 some of the appellants are officers of the State Government and others are dealers.

(3.) THE impugned judgments of the High Court reversing the orders of acquittal and convicting the appellants in these appeals have been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants by contending that although an appellate Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of fact and reverse such finding on proper appreciation of evidence adduced in the trial, as a rule of prudence, Court of appeal should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the trial court's reasoning for basing the order of acquittal are not perverse or against the weight of the evidence adduced in the case and the basis of judgment is founded on a reasoning which cannot be held to be one of the possible views which may be reasonably taken by the Court. THE learned counsel have submitted that the guidelines or the principles justifying interference by the Court of appeal against an order of acquittal have been well settled by a number of decisions of this Court indicating that rules of prudence dictate that unless a very strong case for interference against a well reasoned order of acquittal is made out, the Court of appeal will refrain from making its own assessment of the evidence for taking one of the possible views, different from the view taken by the trial Court. It has been submitted that although High Court has rightly pointed out the principle justifying interference against the order of acquittal it failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the cases and the evidences adduced in the trial and has reversed the decisions of the trial Court contrary to the well established principles justifying such interference. THE contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1989 are to the following effect :-