TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. None for the respondent. JUDGMENT N. K. Morn J. - This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated March 2, 1995, rendered by ACJM, Indore in Criminal Case No. 04/ 1990, whereby the respondent was prosecuted for an offence punishable under sections 276 and 278 of Income-tax Act 1961, was acquitted. 2. In short the case of the prosecution before the learned court below was that respondent/accused was working in a private limited company at Dewas. The respondent has filed the return after the delay of 22 months for the year 1982-83. Further case of the prosecution was that by not filing the return in lime, the respondent has committed an offence which is punishable under the provisions of Income-tax Act. After fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is favourable 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. The hon'ble apex court has further held that in a case where the admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to reappreciate 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. It is further held that the principle o be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly reasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference 6. Having considered all the aspects of the matter and after reappreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution appellant, this court is satisfied that this is not a case in which this court may be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal passed by learned trial court The reasons given by the trial court for acquitting the respondent appears to be reasonable and are based on evidence. It is well-settled that even if on the basis of the same evidence, if other view is possi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
