Public sanction proof and appellate restraint in acquittal review shape the corruption prosecution outcome.

A public sanction order for prosecution may be proved by producing the original order issued by the competent authority and proving the authenticating signature; proof is not confined to the mode assumed by the High Court, and the unobjected exhibit was admissible. In a corruption prosecution, interference with acquittal is unwarranted where the evidence contains inconsistencies and improbabilities and the High Court's view is a plausible one on the record. Applying the settled rule that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal when two reasonable views are possible, the conviction was not restored and the acquittal stood.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sanction for prosecution was proved in accordance with law and could be acted upon; (ii) Whether the evidence on record justified reversal of the acquittal recorded by the High Court in a corruption prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the sanction for prosecution was proved in accordance with law and could be acted upon.

Analysis: The original sanction order was produced and was issued in the name of the Governor by the competent authority. The document was treated as a public document, and the witness examined proved the signature of the authenticating officer. The Court held that proof of a public document is not confined to the mode suggested by the High Court under the law relating to opinion evidence, and that the document had been exhibited without objection at the trial stage.

Conclusion: The sanction for prosecution was validly proved and was admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence on record justified reversal of the acquittal recorded by the High Court in a corruption prosecution.

Analysis: The Court found material inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution version regarding the sequence of events, the conduct of the complainant and other witnesses, the role of the accused as only a recommending authority, and the circumstances of the trap and recovery. On the entire evidence, the prosecution case was held not to be free from doubt, and the High Court's view was considered a possible view on the record. In an appeal against acquittal, interference was unwarranted where two views were reasonably possible.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish that the High Court's acquittal was perverse or unsustainable, and the conviction could not be restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is not justified when the evidence permits more than one reasonable view and the acquittal represents a plausible view on the record; a public sanction order may be proved by production of the original order and proof of authentication of the signature on it.

---