Concurrent findings in bribery cases may be disturbed under Article 136 when evidence is unreliable and conviction is unsafe.

In criminal matters, concurrent findings of fact under Article 136 may be interfered with where they are perverse, based on misreading or improper appreciation of evidence, or otherwise unsafe to sustain. Applying that standard, the Court found the prosecution case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification unconvincing: the accused's claim of casual leave was supported by documentary and oral evidence, the adverse inference drawn below was unwarranted, and the trap recovery was weakened by significant evidentiary gaps, including the absence of phenolphthalein treatment and circumstances supporting a theory of planting. Documentary material also suggested the underlying work had already been done, undermining the prosecution foundation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the penal and corruption statutes was sustainable on the evidence and whether interference under Article 136 of the Constitution was warranted.

Analysis: The Court reiterated that interference with concurrent findings of fact in criminal matters under Article 136 is exceptional, but is justified where the findings are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or where the evidence is unreliable or unsafe to act upon. On the facts, the prosecution case of demand and acceptance of bribe was found unconvincing. The appellant's defence that he was on casual leave on one alleged payment date was supported by documentary material and oral evidence, and the adverse inference drawn by the courts below was held unwarranted. As to the trap recovery, the Court noted material weaknesses, including the absence of phenolphthalein treatment and circumstances making the defence version of planting of money more probable. The documentary evidence also supported the appellant's case that electric connection had already been given earlier, weakening the very foundation of the prosecution story.

Conclusion: The concurrent findings of guilt were held to be unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to succeed.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside because the prosecution evidence did not inspire confidence and the findings below were vitiated by improper appreciation of the material on record.

Ratio Decidendi: In criminal appeals under Article 136, concurrent findings of fact may be interfered with where they are perverse, rest on misreading or improper appreciation of evidence, or where the prosecution case is not sufficiently reliable to sustain conviction.

---