Acquittal interference requires substantial and compelling reasons; if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused prevails.

Appellate interference with an acquittal is warranted only on substantial and compelling reasons, such as a palpably wrong conclusion, an erroneous view of law, manifest injustice, or grave miscarriage of justice. Where two reasonable views are possible, the view favouring the accused must prevail. Applying that standard, the HC found no basis to fasten criminal liability on a person who had only prepared and filed a return on the basis of documents supplied by the assessee, and the complainant failed to show why liability for the alleged forged TDS certificates should attach. Leave to appeal against the acquittal was therefore refused and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal was warranted in the absence of substantial and compelling reasons to interfere with the trial court's view.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principles governing appellate interference with an order of acquittal and noted that such interference is justified only where the trial court's conclusion is palpably wrong, based on an erroneous view of law, manifestly unjust, or has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. It also relied on the rule that where two reasonable views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail. On the facts, the complainant failed to show how the respondent, who had merely prepared and filed the return on the basis of documents supplied by the assessee, could be criminally fastened with liability for the alleged forged TDS certificates. The Court further noted that similar matters had already been decided against the complainant.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal against the acquittal was not warranted and the acquittal was not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the acquittal failed, and the petitions seeking leave to appeal were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal will not be disturbed unless the appellate court finds substantial and compelling reasons, and where the evidence admits of two reasonable views, the view supporting acquittal must be adopted.

---