Reversal of acquittal in trap cases requires careful scrutiny of unreliable evidence and material inconsistencies in prosecution proof.

SC held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal on the evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The trap evidence was found materially unsatisfactory: the alleged anthracene marks were not convincingly proved, the prosecution version was inconsistent on how the notes were handled, and the complaint, panchnama and oral testimony did not fully match. The panch witnesses, police witness and complainant were not consistent on important particulars, so the prosecution case lacked reliability. In an appeal against acquittal, due weight must be given to the trial court's view and the infirmities supporting the accused; applying that standard, the conviction could not stand and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification on the evidence adduced.

Analysis: The evidence relating to the trap was found unsatisfactory in material respects. The alleged anthracene marks on the fingers were not convincingly established, especially because no powder was found on the cap which, on the prosecution version, the accused had handled with the same hand that allegedly touched the currency notes. There were also inconsistencies between the complaint, the panchnama, and the oral testimony as to the manner in which the notes were put in the envelope, the presence of the parties, and the state of the ultraviolet examination. The evidence of the panch witnesses and the police witness was not consistent on important particulars, and the complainant's version was not sufficiently reliable. In an appeal against acquittal, the reasons supporting the trial court's view and the infirmities favouring the accused had to be given due weight before reversing the acquittal.

Conclusion: The High Court's reversal of the acquittal was not warranted, and the conviction could not stand. The appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted.

---