1 2026:CGHC:8753 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 361 of 2024 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Superintendent of Police, Station Economic Offence Investigation Bureau and Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Awadh Kishore Goutam S/o Dwarika Prasad Goutam, Aged About 62 Years, The Then Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department, Sub Division No. 1, Katghora, District- Korba Chhattisgarh. Resident of Plot No. 107, Kosabadi, Korba, District- Korba Chhattisgarh. Permanent Resident of Village Agariya, Police Station Jaisinagar, Tehsil and District Sagar Madhya Pradesh. ---- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sanajy Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 18-02-2026 1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant/State against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28-02-2019 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Korba, in Special Criminal Case (P.C. Act) No.3/2014 whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the offence under Section 3(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘P.C. Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief that the respondent/accused was an employee posted as Sub-Divisional Officer at Water Resources Department, Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.02.23 15:49:44 +0530 2 Sub-Division 1 Katghora, District Korba. It is alleged that during his tenure of service in between check period on 01-01-1993 and 15-02-2011 he acquired the property of Rs.55,91,892.88/- which is against known source of their income and the respondent/accused could not explain its source. On 14-02- 2011 a raid was conducted in the Govt. quarter and office chamber of the respondent/accused and inventory was prepared. During the inventory articles belonging to the respondent/accused and his properties’ valuation was put by the Investigating Officer and in the inventory it was found by the Investigating Officer that during check period of 01-01-1993 and 15-02-2011 total income of the respondent/accused from all sources was Rs.58,34,956.72/- and his expenditure to acquire properties was Rs.1,14,26,849.60/- and thus he acquired the properties of more than 55,91,892.88/- apart from his known source of income and thereby he committed the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR Ex.-P/170 has been registered against the respondent/accused and after obtaining due sanction for prosecution, recording statement of the witnesses, collected the relevant documents and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court framed charge against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 7/13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent/accused denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as 46 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the respondent/accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he explained the source of income and his expenditure. He explained that the prosecution has wrongly calculated the income and expenditure and the income of the entire family 3 members have not been taken into consideration. In support of his defence he examined two defence witnesses, namely, Smt. Nirmala Gautam DW-1 and A.K. Gautam DW-2. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused from the alleged offences by giving him benefit of doubt by holding that the total income of the respondent/accused between check period was Rs.60,04,956.72/-, whereas the total expenditure was Rs.38,56,801/-. It has also been found by the learned trial Court that certain income of the family members have not been calculated by the prosecution. The said judgment of acquittal is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent/accused. But for minor omissions and contradictions the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are fully reliable. The respondent/accused has failed to give any explanation with respect to the properties found his possession or in possession of his other family members which has been either purchased by him or in the name of his family members particularly when the source of its acquisition is the service benefit of the respondent/accused. Though the mater relates to calculation and valuation of the properties which has been found in the possession of the respondent/accused, but the authorities have rightly valued the properties during the inventory proceeding and found that the respondent/accused acquired the properties apart from know source of income. The consideration of the learned trial Court is erroneous with respect to the adjustment of the income and expenditure of the respondent/accused from his salary as well as the property purchased by him. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that after adverting the 4 entire evidence available on record the learned trial Court has rightly considered and came into conclusion that income of the respondent is more than his expenditure and by giving him benefit of doubt he has been acquitted which needs no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal, the learned trial Court after calculating and appreciating the evidence with respect to the income of the respondent/accused, his salary, the value of the property, the acquisition of the property by the person in whose name it was recorded and their independent source of income, meticulously examined its value and also the period in which the said property is purchased by them, has considered that the income of the respondent accused is more than his expenditure within the check period. 10. 10. In para 163 of its judgment the learned trial Court has held that:- 163& bl rjg vfHk;qä ds }kjk vkyksP; vof/k fnukad 01-01-1993 ls fnukad 15-02-2011 rd dqy 15]25]447@& :i;s O;; fd;k tkuk ,oa 32]12]286-72@& :i;s osru] py&vpy laifRr dh fcdh] ,oa Ñf"k] ls vk; vftZr djuk lk{; ls çekf.kr ik;k tkrk gSA bl rjg vkyksP; vof/k esa vfHk;qä ds vk; vFkZkr 32]12]286-72@& :i;s esa vfHk;qä ds O;; 15]25]447 @& :i;s dks ?kVkus ij 16]86]839-72@& :i;s cprk gSA mijksä dkj.kksa ls vfHk;qä }kjk vkyksP; vof/k esa vk; ds Kkr lzksrksa ls vuuqikfrd laifRr vftZr fd;k tkuk çekf.kr ugha ik;k tkrk gSA 11. The value put-forth by the Investigating Officer at the time of inventory is appear to be his own valuation without any report from the expert valuer and the value so put-forth by the Investigating Officer cannot be considered to be correct value particularly when the value of the properties and articles were considered by the learned trial Court in its detail judgment after appreciating the evidence laid down by both the parties. The valuation of the property and adjustment of its account is pure question of fact which has been considered by the learned trial Court in detail. 5 12. The present is an appeal against acquittal and the consideration of the learned trial Court appears to be plausible view taken by him while passing the judgment of acquittal. There may be some differences in the valuation of the property and income of the respondent/accused, but while considering the appeal against acquittal the same cannot be re-appreciated with respect to recalculation of the account. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and Ors Vs. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440, has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgment at Para 25 which reads as under; "25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 Cr.P.C., the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 14. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is 6 not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 15. The Trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the parties and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the parties, acquitted the accused person after giving him the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant and the statements made by the prosecution witnesses in their court evidence makes the prosecution case suspicious and is not credible. 16. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the Court below and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Jafarudheen (supra) and Kistoora Ram (supra) that in an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible on the basis by the evidence laid by the prosecution and the trial court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion on the finding of acquittal by the appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. 17. From careful perusal of the record, this Court does not find any perversity in the consideration of the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned, acquitting the respondent/accused is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant against the acquittal of respondent from the aforesaid offence is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil