2G Leave Appeal DHC
2G Leave Appeal DHC
2G Leave Appeal DHC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal under
29. Learned senior counsel submitted that above said money trail was
recorded by the Ld. Trial Court in para 367 of the impugned judgment.
Though the Ld. Trial Court recorded this allegation in para 367-370.
5
(2021) 3 SCC 687
6
2022 SCC OnLine Del 515
7
2023 8 SCC 197
8
2022 10 SCC 383
9
2021 15 SCC 268
10
(2016) 4 SCC 357
12
(1976) 1 SCC 20
13
2023 4 SCC 731
14
(2023) 9 SCC 581
15
(2007) 3 SCC 755
16
AIR 1961 SC 715
17
(2004) 5 SCC 573
18
(2007) 11 SCC 402
19
(2008) 13 SCC 570
20
(2004) 1 SCC 547
21
(2004) 5 SCC 568
28
(1998) 1 SCC 226
29
(2014) 14 SCC 295
30
(2023) 8 SCC 197
31
2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19590
32
CRLLP No. 26 of 2016; Judgment dated. 13.01.2023
33
1951 SCC 1207
34
1955 SCC OnLine SC 17
35
(2008) 10 SCC 450
39
1881 SCC OnLine Allahabad 12
40
1889 SCC OnLine Allahabad 12
41
1931 SCC OnLine Allahabad 44
42
1951 SCC 1207
43
1955 SCC OnLine SC 17
87. Reliance was also placed upon Surajpal Singh V. State (Supra), in this
case, an additional test was laid down that the order of acquittal can
only be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.
Learned senior counsel submitted that the Court while passing an order
in the question of leave to appeal is required to pass a speaking order
indicating reasons in such case. The reliance has also been placed upon
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manoj Kumar alias Chhotu44. Learned
senior counsel further relied upon State of Madya Pradesh v. Giriraj
Dubey 45 to emphasize that the High Court is required to oblige to
assign reasons. Learned senior counsel has submitted that in State of
44
(2008) 13 SCC 654
45
(2013) 15 SCC 257
46
2004 1 SCC 547
47
2012 SCC OnLine P & H 19590
48
CRLLP No.26 of 2015 decided on 13.01.2023
49
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11973
50
2013 SCC OnLine Del 3251
51
2019 SCC OnLine Del 10331
52
CRL.L.P 364/2017 decided on 06.07.2017
59
Appeal No. 2450 of 1986
60
2013 4 SCC 206
61
Crl. LP No. 111/2011
62
LP No. 61/2015
63
Crl. Appeal no.246 of 1978
64
(2017) 1 SC 529
65
Crl LP No. 55/2021
81
(2020) 10 SCC 166
82
2019 (1) JCC 830 (Delhi)
86
(2020) 8 SCC 811
87
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 966
88
(2019) 13 SCC 289
95
(2018) 5 SCC 790
96
2021 (20) SCC 135
98
(2023) 6 SCC 605 [Para 18-23]
99
(2021) 15 SCC 268 [Para 32-37],
100
(2014) 5 SCC 730 [Para 12]
101
(2012) 10 SCC 383, [Para 34]
102
(2012) 6 SCC 589, [Para 27]
103
(2010) 9 SCC 189, [Para 19, 20]
104
(2009) 10 SCC 401 [Para 41]
105
(2009) 4 SCC 271 [Para 28]
106
(2023) 8 SCC 197
107
2010 SCC Online Del 4045
108
(2012) 10 SCC 383
110
1981 Supp SCC 15
111
2013 4 SCC 206
112
2010 15 SCC 463
113
2001 SCC OnLine SC 118
114
1981 Supp SCC 15
145. Learned senior counsel has further relied upon State of Rajasthan vs.
Ram Niwas116 which was also a judgment on the scope of leave to
appeal. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon State of Rajasthan
vs. Ganpat Singh117.
Submissions of Respondent No. 8/ M/s Unitech Wireless
146. Mr. D. P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 8 submitted that
the Ld. Trial Court has taken a reasonable view and there is no
illegality or perversity in the same. Learned counsel submitted that an
order of acquittal cannot be interfered only if there are two possible
115
2013 SCC OnLine SC 147
116
(2010) 15 SCC 463
117
2001 SCC OnLine SC 118
118
(2014) 5 SCC 730 Para. 12
119
(2009) 4 SCC 271 Para. 28
120
(2009) 10 SCC 401 Para. 41
121
(1991) 45 DLT 172 Para. 5
122
2015 SCC OnLine Del 7846 Para. 13
123
(2007) 8 SCC 418 Para. 63
124
(2003) 4 SCC 289 Para. 12
126
(2007) 4 SCC 415
127
Cr.L.P. 577 /2019
128
(2017) 1 SCC 529
129
(2020) 8 SCC 811
130
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 966
131
(2019) 13 SCC 289
132
(2009) 10 SCC 206
133
(1992) 2SCC 10
134
Civil appeal No. 4715-4716/23
135
Appeal 2450/1986
136
Crl. Appeal 861 of 2018
137
Crl.LP No 111/2011
138
2008 5 SCC 662
139
(2021) 3 SCC 687
140
2023 SCC OnLine SC 424
141
(2023) 4 SCC 731
142
2023 SCC OnLine SC 280
143
1997 Cri LJ 2559 (Del)
144
(2010) 3 SCC 538
145
(2005) 5 SCC 258
146
(2005) 5 SCC 272
147
(1999) 5 SCC 253
148
(2022) 8 SCC 440
149
(2011) 3 SCC 351
150
(2010) 8 SCC 524
151
(2012) 9 SCC 257
152
(2015) 4 SCC 609
153
Cri. Misc. Application No. 16805/2019
154
Crl. LP 85/2017
155
(2015) 12 SCC 781
156
(2011) 3 SCC 351
157
(2010) 8 SCC 524
158
(2012) 9 SCC 257
159
(2015) 4 SCC 609
161
(2011) 1 SCC 560
240. Further in Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI 164 it was inter-alia held as
under:
“23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an
alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fiber of the
country‟s economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have
serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State
of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 364 this
Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional
evidence, inter alia, observed as under:-
“5.....The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to
book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon
passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed
with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on
personal profit regardless of the consequence to the
Community. A disregard for the interest of the Community can
be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith
of the Community in the system to administer justice in an
even handed manner without fear of criticism from the
quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye
unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and
national interest….”
24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility
of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests
of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept
in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the
163
(2013) 7 SCC 439
164
(2013) 7 SCC 466
241. Though this court is not dealing with the bail application, the
judgments have only been referred to emphasis the point that the
present case stands on a different footing and is therefore required to be
handled with little more sensitivity.
242. The Court is fully conscious of the fact that rules of appreciation of
evidence and trial remains the same in all cases, be it an economic
offence or other offences. However, the courts cannot have a static
approach and must have dynamic approach in consonance with the
facts alleged in a particular case. The present case is not an ordinary
case of murder, dacoity, rape, theft or fraud. It was case where the
allegations were extremely serious in nature. Thus the appreciation of
the evidence and handling of such case has to be done in a very
different manner.
243. Learned counsel for the respondents rendered very valuable assistance
to the court and put hard labour in reading out all the relevant
paragraphs of the judgment as well the sworn testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. This gave an opportunity to the court to go
through the sworn testimony of the witnesses, the statements recorded
250. In the present case, the learned counsels for the respondents have time
and again stated that though the prosecution witnesses did not support
the case of the prosecution but the prosecution did not put any question
or declared them hostile. It was argued that many of the points
remained unexplained. The question before this court is that whether by
refusing leave to appeal such ambiguity should be buried without an
opportunity to the State for giving an explanation for such. It may not
166
(2000) (1) SCC 722