Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25575 Court No. - 78 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1324 of 2015 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Lahauri Prasad Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Counsel for Respondent :- Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State- appellant and perused the record. 3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and oder dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Varanasi in Special Trial No. 20 of 2002 (State Vs. Lahauri Prasad) under Sections 7/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)D of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Cant, District-Varanasi concerning Case Crime No. 602 of 2002 by which the court concern has acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges levelled against him. 4. This appeal is pending for admission. The trial court's records have been received which have been perused. 5. The trial court while passing the impugned judgment and order has extended the benefit of doubt to the accused respondent. The reasons as assigned by the trial court are that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the accused to demand bribe and neither has the presence of any independent witness being proved. Further in so far as the alleged recovery of the note is concerned, the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in detail, stated that the recovery has been shown from his house and the money was kept in the shirt which he was wearing some time ago and later on he had taken out the shirt and kept it in the house and on Sushil Kumar coming to his house he again took the shirt to wear it wherein the said notes and a telephone diary fell on the ground and when he tried to pick it up and keep it back, Sushil Kumar made some action by gesture on which some people entered in his house and took the said articles and apprehended him. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in so far as the recovered notes are concerned the same had tallied to the notes which were previously marked and treated with powder were recovered from the pocket of the shirt of the accused-respondent and thus it would be a fact that the notes were for bribe and were given to him. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it is evident that the present appeal is an appeal against acquittal. The reasons as given by the trial court for acquitting the respondent-accused are cogent reasons which cannot be said to be beyond records. The trial court has extended the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent and thus acquitted him. As per the settled principles of law a view taken by a court should only be reversed if it is palpably absurd and against the weight of evidence on record. In the present case, the view taken by the trial court is a probable view which is based on perusal of records and is backed by reasons which does not call for any interference. 8. No case for admission is made out. The prayer for leave is thus refused. 9. The office to communicate this order to the trial court concerned and the trial court records be sent back. 10. Matter consigned to record. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Kumar Manish (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad