Holding

Section 386(a) CrPC unequivocally empowers an appellate court to reverse an acquittal and convict the accused, and no statutory restriction can be read into it.

Summary

The appellants C. Ronald and Anil Kumar were caught with counterfeit Rs.100 notes after a gambling incident; the police seized numerous fake notes from their possession and homes. The trial court acquitted them, but the Calcutta High Court reversed the acquittal, convicted them under the provisions relating to circulation of fake currency, and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Section 386(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits an appellate court to convert an order of acquittal into a conviction and whether any statutory limitation exists on that power. The Court held that the language of Section 386(a) is clear and places no restriction on the appellate court’s authority to reverse an acquittal and pass a sentence, and therefore the High Court’s conviction was valid. It also rejected the contention that police statements must be presumed false and affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence, reducing the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The appeal was disposed of, confirming the conviction with the reduced term.

Issues considered

The scope of power conferred by Section 386(a) CrPC on an appellate court to reverse an order of acquittal and convict the accused.
Whether any statutory or jurisprudential limitation exists on exercising that power.
The admissibility and credibility of police testimony and statements under Section 164 CrPC in the appellate proceedings.
Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appropriate quantum of sentence for the offence of circulating counterfeit currency.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 164, s. 313, s. 386(a), s. 417

Subjects

appellate jurisdictionacquittal reversalSection 386 CrPCcounterfeit currencyevidence appraisalpolice testimonycriminal proceduresentencing

Judgment

[2011) 9 S.C.R. 1067
"'
I >
C. RONALD & ANR. A
v.
STATE, U.T. OF ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 749 of 2005)
lW
AUGUST 10, 2011
B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
PRASAD, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 386(a) - Power of
the appellate court to reverse an order of acquittal - c
Circulation of fake currency notes - Two accused - Appellant
No.1-accused searched by S.I. and fake currency notes of Rs.
)' 100 denomination recovered from his chest pocket - Fake
notes also recovered from the house of appellant no. 1 - Trial
court acquitted the accused-appellants, but the High Court D
reversed that judgment and convicted them - On appeal, held:
Since the language of s.386(a) Cr.P.C. is clear and it places
no restrictions on the power of the appellate court to convert
an order of acquittal into a conviction, one cannot place
restrictions on this power for that would really be amending E
the statute - On facts, sufficient evidence on record to prove
the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt
• - Making or circulating fake currency is a serious offence -
No reason to take a lenient view in the matter - However, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, while upholding the F
conviction of the appellants, the period of his sentence
reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment.
Interpretation of Statutes - Held: Where the words are
clear, there is no scope for the Court to innovate or take upon
. ·~ itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions. G

Witness - Police witness - Held: No principle of law that
a statement made in court by a police personnel has to be
disbelieved - Every statement of a policeman cannot be
1067 H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.
I <

A assumed to be necessarily false.
Precedent - Held: Judgment of a court of law should not
be read as a Euclid's theorem nor as a provision in a statute.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation vs. N.R. Vairamani AIR •
B 2004 S.C. 4778: 2004 (4) Siuppl. SCR 923; Dr. Rajbir Singh
Dalal vs. Cflaudhary Devi Lal University J.T. 2008 (8) S.C.
621: 2008 (13) SCR 477; \lemareddy Kumaraswamyreddy
& Anr. vs. State of A.P. JT 2CI06 (2) 361; Union of India & Anr.
vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal '1992 Supp (1) SCC 323; Sanwat
C Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 715: 1961
SCR 120 and Salim Zia vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1979
SC 391: 1979 (2) SCR 394 - relied on.

Shingara Singh vs. State' of Haryana (2003) 12 SCC 758
0 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
(2003) 12 sec 758 referred to Para 7
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 9~!3 relied on Para 9
E
2008 (13) SCR 477 relied on Para 9
JT 2006 (2) 361 relied on Para 11 •
1992 Supp (1) sec 323 relied on Para 12
F
1961 SCR 120 relied on Para 15
1979 (2) SCR 394 relied on Para 16
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JIJRISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
G No. 749 of 2005.
From the Judgment & Order dated 01.10.2004 of the High
Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in Criminal Appeal
No. 031 of 2002.

H
C. RONALD & ANR. v. STATE, U.T. OF ANDAMAN & 1069
NICOBAR ISLANDS
) .,
Shanty Bhushan, K.R. Sasiprabhu, M.K. Sreegesh, A
Somiran Sharma for the Appellants.
T.S. Doabia, Ashok Bhan, R.K. Rathore, Sunita Sharma,
Rashmi Malhotra, D.S. Mahra for the Respondent.
.,
The following order of the Court was delivered B

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned c
judgment dated 01.10.2004 passed by the Calcutta High Court,
Circuit Bench at Port Blair, in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2002.
_)
3. The facts have been set out in great detail in the
impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same D
here except wherever necessary.
4. It appears that on 26.11.1997 Sub Inspector Abdul
Salam received a secret information that in the evening of
25.11.1997 C. Ronald, appellant No. 1 herein, participated in
E
a gambling. Some hundred rupees notes which were sought
to be used by him in the gambling were not accepted by the
~
co-gamblers on the ground that they were fake, whereafter
Ronald left the place. He was searched by S.I. Abdul Salam
and fake currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination were
recovered from his chest pocket. Panchnama was prepared F
and he was arrested. During interrogation Ronald disclosed the
name of other co-accused. One Arun disclosed the name of
R. Anil Kumar, appellant No. 2 herein.
5. Disclosures made by Arun and Anil Kumar were also G
'I '
referred to in the impugned judgment. During the investigation
42 fake notes were recovered from the house of Ronald
wrapped in a red handkerchief from inside a shoe. Each of
these notes bore the same serial number. Some fake currency
notes were given by Anil to Arun, who tore them up and threw H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

I\ them into a toilet, where these torn pieces were recovered from
the septic tank.
6. The trial court acquitted the accused persons, but the
High Court has reversHd that judgment and convicted the
8 accused persons.
7. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants, contends that the trial court having taken a
view and acquitted the appellants, the High Court ought not to
have reversed the same. He has relied upon a decision of this
C Court in Shingara Singh 'VS. State of Haryana, (2003) 12 SCC
758 [para 26], wherein it was observed :-
"... It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal the \ ...
High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence
D on record but having done so, if it finds that the view taken
by the trial court is a possible reasonable view of the
evidence on record, it will not substitute its opinion for that
of the trial court. Only in cases where the High Court finds
that the findings recorded by the trial court are
unreasonable or pervE~rse or that the court has committed
E
a serious error of law, or where the trial court had recorded
its findings in ignorance of relevant material on record or
by taking into consideration evidence which is not
admissible, the High Court may be justified in reversing
the order of acquittal..."
F
8. Mr. Shanti Bhushan has also shown us some other
decisions which have taken the same view.
9. In this connection WE~ would like to say that a judgment
G of a court of law should not be read as a Euclid's theorem nor
as a provision in a statute, vide Bharat Petroleum Corporation ••
vs. N.R.- Vairamani, AIR 2004 S.C. 4778 (vide paragraphs 9
to 12), Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal
University J.T. 2008 (8) S.C. 621, etc.
H
C. RONALD & ANR. v. STATE, U.T. OF ANDAMAN &1071
NICOBAR ISLANDS
; ;
10. Section 386 (a) Cr.P.C. states that the appellate court A
may:
"in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse such order
and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused
be re-tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or
find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law". B
11. A perusal of Section 386(a) Cr.P.C. shows that no
restrictions have been placed by the Statute on the power of
the appellate court to reverse an order of acquittal and convict
the accused.
c
12. As observed by this court in Vemareddy
Kumaraswamyreddy & Anr. vs. State of A.P. JT 2006(2) 361
(vide para 17) where the words were clear, there is no scope
...) for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending
or altering the statutory provisions. D
13. In Union of India & Anr. vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal
1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 (vide para 14), it was observed :
"It is not the duty of the court either to enlarge the scope
of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the E
language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The
court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for
the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The
power to legislate has not been conferred on the courts.
• The court cannot add words to a statute or read words into
it which are not there". F
14. Since the language of Section 386(a) Cr.P.C. is clear
and it places no restrictions on the power of the appellate court
to convert an order of acquittal into a conviction, we cannot
place restrictions on this power for that would really be G
amending the statute.
15. No doubt, it has been held in certain decisions of this
court that there should be good and compelling reasons for the
appellate court to convert an order of acquittal into a conviction,
but these decisions have been carefully considered in the three- H;
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

I •
A Judge Bench of this court in Sanwat Singh & Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 715 (vide para 9) wherein it was
observed:
"The foregoing discussion yields the following results: (1)
an appellate court has full power to review the evidence .
B upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the
principles laid down in Sheo Swarup's cse 61 Ind App 398:
[(AIR 1934 PC 227 (2)) afford a correct guide for the
appellate court's approach to a case in disposing of such
an appeal; and (3) the different phraseology used in the
c judgments of this Court, such as, (i) "substantial and
compelling reasons", (ii) "good and sufficiently cogent
reasons", and (iii) "strong reasons", are not intended to
curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an
appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and
• -
D to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it should not
only consider every matter on record having a bearing on
the questions of fclct and the reasons given by the court
below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a
conclusion on thos.e facts, but should also express those
E reasons in its jud1~ment, which lead it to hold that the
acquittal was not justified".
16. In Salim Zia vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1979 SC
•
391 (vide para 12) it was observed by this Court: •
F "1. The High Court in an appeal against an order of
acquittal under S.417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898 has full poweir to review at large the evidence on
which the order of c:1cquittal was founded and to reach the
conclusion that upon the evidence, the order of acquittal
should be reversed.
G
2. The different phraseology used in the judgments of this ••
Court such as --
(a) 'substantial and compelling reasons';
H (b) 'good and sufficiently cogent reasons';
C. RONALD & ANR. v. STATE, U.T. OF ANDAMAN & 1073
NICOBAR ISLANDS
; I
(cc) 'strong reasons', A
are not intended to curtail or place any limitation on the
undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to
come to its own conclusion as stated above but in doing
~
, so it should give proper consideration to such matters as B
(i) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the
witnesses; (ii) the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the
fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (ii) the right of
the accused to the benefit of any real. and reasonable c
doubt; and (iv) the slowness Of an appellate Court Jn
disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had
the advantage of seeing the witnesses."
J
17. Moreover, in the present case, it has been observed D
by the High Court in the impugned judgment that :-
"We have already demonstrated that the view taken by the
learned Sessions Judge is not a possible view on the state
of evidence. On the contrary, we have amply demonstrated
above that the learned Sessions Judge excluded from E
consideration the evidence which was there. He fell into
grievous error in appreciation of the evidence and
misdirected himself; entertained a doubt for which there
"' was no foundation and expressed his helplessness
because the witnesses particularly the seizure witnesses F
turned hostile and refused to tell the court the truth. Attempt
on his part was lacking to marshal the evidence; to remove
the grain from chaff; to take the help of that part of the
evidence of the hostile witnesses which support the case
of the prosecution. He commented upon insincerity of the G
investigating agency but did not put to use the material
•• which was before him. We feel no hesitation in holding that
the learned Sessions Judge was wrong and therefore we
have reappraised the evidenee and come to the conclusion
indicated above. n
H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A 18. Hence, we do not agree with submission advanced by I '
Mr. Shanti Bhushan.
19. Mr. Shanti Bhushan then submitted that the statement
under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure was wrongly
taken int() consideration.
B
•
.
20. In the present cas4~, the person who made the statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also gave evidence before the trial
court ancl was declared l1ostile. He was confronted with his
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. only to show that his
c turning h()stile was not bo1na fide. However, even if we ignore
the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., we see no reason
to disbelieve the police witnesses.
21. There is no princiiple of law that a statement made in
court by a police personnel has to be disbelieved. It may or may \.i..
D not be believed. It is not that all policemen will tell lies. There
are good and bad people in all walks of life. There are good
and bad police men as well. We cannot assume that every
statement. of a policeman is necessarily false.
22. In the present cai)e, there is nothing to show that the
E policemen were making false statements in the court. They had
no enmity with the accused.
23. Mr. Shanti Bhushan submitted that it is possible that
these policemen demand1ed some money from the accused •
which they did not give and hence they were falsely implicated. •
F
24. This case was nolt set up by the accused at any point
of time and no such suggestion was even made in the cross-
examination.

G 25. It is next submitted by Mr. Shanti Bhushan that evidence
adverse to the appellants was not put to them in their
examinati<m under Section 313 Cr.P.C. ••
26. This aspect has been considered by the High Court
which has held that no prejudice has been caused to the
H accused on this account.
C. RONALD & ANR. v. STATE, U.T. OF ANDAMAN &1075
NICOBAR ISLANDS
i l
27. It is on record that fake currency notes are in wide A
circulation in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The banks have
stated that common people have often complained in this
connection vide Exts. 21, 22 and 11. Witnesses have also been
.. , examined on that account.
B
28. There is sufficient evidence on record (discussed in
detail by the High Court) to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
29. Making or circulating fake currency • is a serious
offence. We see no reason to take a lenient view in the matter.
c
30. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
while upholding the conviction of the appellants we reduce the
_j period of sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment.
31. By order dated 18.03.2005 this Court has granted bail
D
to the appellants .
. 32. If the appellants have not served out sentence of five
years rigorous imprisonment as awarded by us, then their bail
bonds shall stand cancelled and they shall be taken into
· custody forthwith to complete the sentence of five years E
rigorous imprisonment as awarded by us. Any period of
incarceration in jail which the appellants have already
. undergone shall be deducted from the aforesaid period of five
JJ
years rigorous imprisonment.
33. If the appellants have already served out sentence of F
five years rigorous imprisonment, then their bail bonds shall
stand discharged accordingly.
34. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is disposed
of accordingly.
.... ., ,, G
B.B.B. Appeal disposed of.