Madhya Pradesh High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay on 12 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 12TH NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6264 OF 2023
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
Vs.
DINESH KUMAR UPADHYAY AND OTHERS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Vikram Singh- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Nitin Singh Thakur- Advocate for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Ramkumar Choubey:
The appellant/Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved with the judgment dated 7.2.2023 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), CBI, Jabalpur in ST No. 7100762/2015 and Special Case No.900005/2014, whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondents No.1 to 3 from the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "PC Act") and also acquitted the respondent No.4 from the charges under Sections 409, 477-A and 120-B of IPC.Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 2
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainants namely Neelam Nigam, Anita Singh, Purnima Shrivastava, Vijay Pandey, Shubhra Guha, Madhu Mishra and Amit Bansal have made a written complaint to the Officer Incharge of Police Station Kotwali, Satna that they have deposited the money through respondent No.4- Anand Sharma, who happens to be the agent of the Post Office, time to time under the Fixed Deposit Scheme. The respondents-accused also provided the FD receipts to the said depositors. At the time of withdrawal of the deposited money, it has come in the knowledge that no amount was deposited by respondent No.4 Anand Sharma with the Post Office. He made forged documents and he also withdrew money deposited with the account of the depositors fraudulently. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint, an FIR vide Crime No.41/2014 was registered at the Police Station Kotwali, Satna. That apart, Krishna Kumar Dixit, Superintendent of Post Office, Rewa Division, Rewa has also submitted a written complaint dated 21.2.2014 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jabalpur, stating that respondent No.4 Anand Sharma, who was working as Small Savings Agent at Satna in connivance with the respondents No.1 to 3 D.K.Upadhyay, Assistant Post Master (Saving Bank), Ramkalesh Harijan, Counter Clerk and Ku. Manorama Asati, Savings Bank Counter Clerk has fraudulently withdrew the total amount of Rs.21,66,474/- from the 07 Term Deposit accounts of Smt. Neelam Nigam, on the basis of forged signatures of Neelam Nigam and without obtaining original passbooks of all term deposit accounts. It was also alleged that the fixed deposit accounts of Neelam Nigam were unauthorizedly operated by the No.4-Anand Sharma in connivance with respondents No.1 to 3 and the amount deposited with the Saving Account No.137018 of Neelam Nigam, a sum of Rs.5,13,333/- was unauthorizedly transferred in the Saving Account No.128895 of respondent No.4. On the basis of aforesaid written complaint, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 3 CBI, Jabalpur has registered an FIR vide Crime No. RC0092014A0002 on 24.2.2014 under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of IPC against the respondents.
3. After completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted before the learned Special Judge (PC Act), CBI, Jabalpur. ST No.216/2014 was registered on the basis of final report submitted by the SHO of Police Station Kotwali, Satna with respect to Crime No.41/2014 and Special Case No.05/2014 was registered on the basis of final report submitted by the CBI.
4. In pursuance to the order dated 31.7.2015 passed by this Court in MCRC No.4384/2015, ST No.216/2020 pending before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Satna was transferred to the Court of Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur for joint trial, therefore the learned Special Judge has tried both the cases together in one trial and the same were decided by the impugned judgment.
5. At trial, the respondents abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. After completion of the trial, the learned Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur vide its impugned judgment convicted respondent No.4 for the offence under Sections 420, 461 and 471 of IPC and recorded acquittal of the respondents No.1 to 3 as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal against the order of acquittal has been preferred by the appellant-CBI.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/CBI submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. The learned trial Court has erred in holding that the complainant and the sanctioning authority was the same person. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence regarding the criminal conspiracy. It is further submitted that from the materials placed on record, it is evident that all the respondents were involved dishonestly in withdrawal of money from the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 4 account of the depositors. Therefore, acquittal of the respondents No.1 to 3 for all the charges is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that the respondent No.4 is also liable to be convicted for criminal conspiracy along with other respondents. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has recorded the order of acquittal on the basis of mis-appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution, therefore it is prayed that the order of acquittal of the respondents be set aside and they be convicted accordingly. Learned counsel for the appellant/CBI in support of his contention, has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Som Nath Thapa and others, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 659 and in the case of Esher Singh Vs. State of A.P., reported in (2004) 11 SCC 585.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and there is no perversity in the impugned judgment. The involvement of the respondents No.1 to 3 has not been proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution, whereas the respondent No.4 has rightly been acquitted under certain charges, which were not made out. It is vehemently submitted that where two views are possible, the view favouring the accused has to be followed and there is no sufficient ground to interfere in the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. Therefore, it is prayed that present appeal be dismissed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Indisputably, the respondents No.1 to 3 namely Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay, Smt. Manorma Asati and Satya Prakash Urmila were posted in the Postal Department at the relevant time and they were public servants being under the employment of Government of India. Therefore, sanction for prosecution is Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 5 required. In this regard, the learned trial Court has discussed the legal and factual situation, which emerges from the record.
10. It is evident that K.K.Dixit (PW-1), Superintendent of Post Office, Rewa Division has accorded the sanctions for prosecution (Ex.P-3, P-5 and P-6) with respect to respondents No.1 to 3 respectively. K.K.Dixit (PW-1) is the complainant, who had submitted a written complaint dated 21.2.2014 (Ex.P-1) to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jabalpur, therefore, K.K.Dixit (PW-1) cannot be considered as independent and impartial witness. He was bound to accord sanction for prosecution against whom he had lodged the complaint. It is also evident that while according sanction for prosecution, K.K.Dixit (PW-1) has not perused the case diary of the CBI. It is also evident that the draft sanction orders (Ex.D-19 to D-22) were submitted to K.K.Dixit (PW-1) and he signed the same as order of sanction for prosecution. In the case of Ganesh Rao Rudrareshwar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (Criminal Appeal No.2142/2006, decided on 19.12.2022), the Single Bench of this Court has observed that "the sanction order shows that the sanctioning authority has simply signed on the draft sanction letter without applying its mind or referring to any document as to how he reached to the conclusion. The only application of mind by him, it seems, he is in filling up the blank spaces, where he has put in his name and designation. From the aforestated, it is evident that the sanction was issued without application of mind and the prosecution was launched without any valid sanction, hence unsustainable." The learned trial Court while placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, concluded that in a similar situation appears in the case in hand, it cannot be said that the prosecution sanctions are valid one. The findings of the learned trial Court are based on the evidence adduced on record, hence the same do not call for any interference.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 611. So far as the charge of conspiracy is concerned, the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence of Hariom Dixit (PW-16) and Chandresh Jain (PW-3) and concluded that posting of respondent No.2-Manorma Asati as Counter Clerk was not as per the requirement. She has experience of one and half year only in the Postal Department and she was not aware of the saving bank working and she did not possess the requisite qualification for dealing with the act pertaining to saving bank working. Although the manner of posting of an employee or lack of experience cannot be a ground for exoneration from the criminal charges. However, under these circumstances, along with other evidence available on record, it can be inferred that respondent No.2 was not conscious or acted with intent to conspire with respondent No.4. The act of the respondent No.2 being dereliction in her duty may be a ground for disciplinary action against her, but for want of clear evidence of conspiracy, she cannot be held responsible for the offences committed by the respondent No.4 being a conspirator with him. The learned trial Court has recorded this finding on the basis of evidence adduced on record and thereby found that respondent No.2 was not connected with respondent No.4-Anand Sharma for committing any illegal act so as to constitute the criminal conspiracy.
12. Hariom Dixit (PW-16) admitted that respondent No.3 Satya Prakash Umarliya (SP Umarliya) was not named in the FIR (Ex.P-2). This witness also admitted that K.K.Dixit has not made written complaint (Ex.P-1) against respondent No.3. Hariom Dixit (PW-16) stated that he has recorded the statement of respondent No.3 on 2.9.2014, but the same has not been submitted along with the final report. This witness was asked a specific question that while statement of respondent No.3, which document is found on the basis of which he decided to array respondent No.3 as an accused. This witness answered that while asking Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 7 question to respondent No.3 with respect to account holder Anita Singh, his answer was not satisfactory. But Hariom Dixit (PW-16) has clearly stated that statement of Anita Singh was recorded on 19.8.2014, in which she has not made any statement against respondent No.3. This witness (PW-16) admitted that it is not mentioned in the statement (Ex.D-31) that respondent No.3 had withdrawn any amount from the account of Anita Singh.
13. Further, Hariom Dixit (PW-16) stated that respondent No.3 was posted at the Main Post Office, Satna from 2.7.2012 to 3.7.2014 and he admitted that Anita Singh has operated six M.I.S. accounts with the Post Office, Satna in the year 2006 and at that time respondent No.3 was not posted there. Similar situation was with M.I.S. account of Anita Singh, which was opened on 1.1.2010. On the basis of such evidence, the learned trial Court has concluded that all M.I.S. accounts were opened prior to 2012 and therefore respondent No.3 had no role. Further, Hariom Dixit (PW-16) stated that M.I.S. Account No.63744 of Anita Singh was matured on 10.1.2013 and payment was made on the same day. Similarly, account No.65331 matured on 9.2.2013 and account No.65332 matured on 12.2.2013, and the amount of all these accounts are appeared to be transferred to the Saving Account No.146559 of Anita Singh. However, Anita Singh (PW-7) has denied about opening of aforesaid saving accounts and any amount of these accounts was transferred to the account No.146559 or withdrawn any amount from that account.
14. Hariom Dixit (PW-16) further admitted that account No.146559 was opened on 7.8.2012 by the then Counter Clerks namely Ramlal Kol and Rakesh Singh, but no role of respondent No.3 is appeared in opening of said account. Hariom Dixit (PW-16) stated that on the date of maturity of accounts No.65330, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 8 65331 and 65332, respondent No.3 was posted as Counter Clerk, thus respondent No.3 is responsible for transfer of amount to the account No.146559.
15. Hiralal Saket (PW-14) has provided the information (Ex.P-19) to the Officers and Employees, who were posted at the time of transactions in question. However, the learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record, concluded that either the information (Ex.P-19) is false or Anita Singh (PW-7) has given false information regarding opening of the accounts in both the situations, respondent No.4 cannot be held responsible for any illegal act of transfer of amount and thereby conspired with respondent No.4-Anand Sharma.
16. As per the information (Ex.P-119), at the relevant time respondent No.1- D.K.Upadhyay was posted as Assistant Post Master. Hariom Dixit (PW-16) and Hiralal Saket (PW-14) both have stated about the same. Hariom Dixit (PW-16) admitted that he has not obtained any opinion from the Handwriting Expert regarding the signature of respondent No.1.
17. Chandresh Jain (PW-3) stated that the departmental enquiry was conducted in which it is found that the employees of the Postal Department committed irregularities and accordingly disciplinary action was initiated against all of them. However, Hariom Dixit (PW-16) stated that respondent No.1 and other employees namely P.P.Verma and B.B.Singh were posted as Savings Bank Assistant Post Master, but he cannot say that on what basis the C.B.I. arrayed respondent No.1 D.K. Upadhyay as an accused and exonerated P.P.Verma and B.B.Singh.
18. Chandresh Jain (PW-3) admitted that signatures of Purnima Shrivastava and Vijay Pandey on the withdrawal form were found correct. He also admitted that signatures of Madhu Mishra and Amit Bansal on the withdrawal form were made by themselves. Hariom Dixit (PW-16) also admitted that this fact is Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 9 also admitted by Brajesh Kumar Shukla (PW-2) that 400-500 transactions of deposit and withdrawal are being done in a day, therefore due to excess flow of work, the possibility of mistake or error cannot be ruled out. On the basis of evidence adduced on record, the learned trial Court has concluded that at the most respondent No.1 could have committed irregularity or he might be negligent, but there is no substantial evidence on record with respect to criminal conspiracy or intention.
19. On the basis of evidence, it appears that the act of respondent No.3 was only related to account holder Anita Singh, but it is found that the amount of M.I.S. and term deposit account was deposited with the account No.146559, which belongs to Anita Singh. That apart, at the time of opening of said account, the officers and employees of the Postal Department namely Ramlal Kol, Rakesh Singh and P.P.Verma were posted but no investigation was carried out in this regard.
20. Hariom Dixit (PW-16) stated that a search was made on 28.2.2014 at the residence of respondent No.1, but no document relating to search has been submitted along with the final report. It is admitted that during the search, no objectionable article was found at the residence of respondent No.1. The learned trial Court has observed that during the entire investigation, the fact about the benefit or gain by criminal conspiracy has not been discovered with respondent No.4 Anand Sharma. Even no financial gain to the respondents No.1 to 3 has been shown and it is not proved that these respondents No.1 to 3 have obtained wrongful gain. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence with respect to the forgery by putting signature of the depositors on withdrawal forms or account opening forms. More so, it is revealed from the statements of witnesses that withdrawal forms were signed by the account holders themselves. The respondent No.4 was dealing with Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 10 the depositors and he had obtained the signed withdrawal forms from the depositors, but the respondents No.1 to 3 cannot be held responsible for the same without any cogent evidence of their involvement in obtaining withdrawal forms from the depositors or making forgery of any such documents.
21. The Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandraiah Vs. State of A.P. and another, 2004 CRI.L.J. 365 has held as thus:-
"....large number of withdrawals were alleged to be made during the relevant period from recurring deposit accounts in post office in a clandestine manner pursuant to a conspiracy between the accused, employees of post office and others. It is the case of the prosecution that fabricated vouchers were prepared with forged signatures and forged seal of the management of account holders and payment was made on the basis of the said forged vouchers. The vouchers were prepared by A-3. The appellants accused who functioned as Sub-Post Master during the relevant period did not take requisite care before passing the vouchers and did not care to verify whether the vouchers were genuine or forged. In this manner they permitted a larger number of fraudulent withdrawals on the basis of forged vouchers."
The Supreme Court has further held that-
"even though it could be said that the appellants accused acted in a negligent manner and if they had taken due care they would have detected the fraud, but that by itself would not constitute an offence under S.409, IPC though it may expose the appellants to disciplinary action under the relevant rules. Therefore in the absence of any evidence to show that A-3 was acting in conspiracy with the appellants or that appellants had knowledge of the fact that A-3 had fraudulently and dishonestly prepared forged vouchers on the basis of which the amounts were sought to be withdrawn the offences under Ss. 467, 471 or 409, IPC could not be said to be proved against the appellants. Consequently, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 11 offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act would also not be made out....."
22. On the basis of evidence, the learned trial Court has concluded that with respect to transactions in question, the respondents No.1 to 3 being employees of the Post Office, might have committed irregularity or they were negligent but the factum of criminal conspiracy has not been proved.
23. So far as respondent No.4 Anand Sharma is concerned, he has been acquitted from the charges of Sections 477-A and 409 of IPC on the ground that he was not in the employment in the postal department and whatever he did, although as an agent of the post office, but not Clerk, Officer or Servant of the Postal Department and also the money deposited by the depositors was entrusted with the Post Office, therefore he is not liable for the offence under Sections 409 and 477-A of IPC, which provide falsification of accounts and criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent. Since other co-accused persons i.e. respondents No.1 to 3 have not been found responsible for constituting criminal conspiracy with respondent No.4, the respondent No.4 alone cannot be held guilty for criminal conspiracy.
24. The law relating to criminal appeals against acquittal is well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of R.N. Rathneesh Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 2667 has held as under:-
"6. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 12 to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. [See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002 (2) Supreme 567)]. The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 2622), Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996 (4) Supreme 167), Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000 (3) Supreme 320), Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors.
(2003 (7) Supreme 152), State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh (2003 (5) Supreme 508 and State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr. (2003 (7) Supreme17).
25. The Supreme Court in the case of Jaisingh and others Vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 AIR SCW 2453 has held as under:-
"4...... we observe that though the powers of the High Court in an acquittal appeal are not circumscribed and are clearly unfettered, the situation under which they should be resorted to have been spelt out. The broad principle is that the presumption of innocence is strengthened if an accused is acquitted by the trial court and that a reversal of the trial court's judgment should be made in cases where the view taken was not possible on the evidence or perverse with the broad understanding that if two views were possible, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 13 one taken by the Trial Court in favour of the accused should be retained."
26. The Supreme Court has further reiterated identical view in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of UP, AIR 2016 SC 1160. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are as under:-
"18. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, in the case of Sambasivan and Others V. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412, has held :
"The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are well settled. The powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate Court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial Court. It is only when the approach of the trial Court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal".Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 14
19. This Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that the appellate Court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the appellate Court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the Court below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate Court with such an order is imperative.
20. This Court in Chandrappa V. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, after referring to a catena of decisions, has laid down the following general principles with regard to powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge :
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 15 acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must 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 the trial Court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."
27. From the impugned judgment, it is clear that the learned trial Court has recorded acquittal on the basis of evidence adduced on record. The appreciation of evidence with a different view, even if possible, does not allow the appellate Court to substitute its view in regard to other view already taken by the trial Court. The learned trial Court has not considered any irrelevant evidence or failed to consider relevant evidence, and thus it cannot be said that the trial Court while appreciating the evidence on record was erroneous in acquitting the respondents. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be said to be perverse. Infact we have observed that the learned trial Judge has meticulously collated the facts and appreciated them on a delicate balance to do complete justice amongst the parties.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANZOOR AHMED Signing time: 05-12-2025 17:08:28 1629. Accordingly, this criminal appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The bail bonds, if furnished by the respondents, shall stand discharged.
30. The record of the Court below be sent back forthwith along with the copy of this judgment.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ansari
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANZOOR
AHMED
Signing time: 05-12-2025
17:08:28