Acquittal in corruption cases stands unless evidence proves demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt.

Interference with an acquittal in a corruption case is confined to situations where the evidence leaves only one possible view; if two reasonable views exist, the view favouring the accused must prevail. In a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts of demand and acceptance. Where the independent evidence on demand is unavailable or unreliable and the trap circumstances create serious doubt, the acquittal is not treated as perverse and is not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the High Court in a corruption prosecution should be interfered with, and whether the prosecution had proved the foundational facts of demand, acceptance and recovery so as to attract the statutory presumption.

Analysis: Interference with an acquittal is warranted only where the evidence permits only one possible view; if two views are reasonably possible, the view favouring the accused must prevail. In a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non, and the presumption under Section 20 can operate only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts. On the evidence, the sole independent witness on demand was unavailable, the remaining witness was not a reliable witness of demand, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged trap created serious doubt about the prosecution version. In that setting, the High Court's view that the charge was not proved could not be said to be perverse.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be disturbed, and the prosecution failed to prove the charge.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, leaving the respondent's acquittal undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court will not interfere where the evidence reasonably admits two views; in a corruption case, the prosecution must first prove the foundational facts of demand and acceptance before the statutory presumption can be invoked.

---