Interference with acquittal and departmental exoneration do not bar independent criminal scrutiny where evidence warrants fuller review.

Leave to appeal against an acquittal may be granted where the trial court is alleged to have materially erred in appreciating the evidence, because interference with acquittal remains exceptional and the presumption of innocence is reinforced. On the record, recovery circumstances, the accused's conduct at the spot, contemporaneous statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and corroborative witness testimony warranted fuller scrutiny. Departmental and revisional exoneration based on benefit of doubt did not bar independent criminal examination. Leave to appeal was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against the order of acquittal should be granted in view of the evidence on record and the effect of the departmental exoneration.

Analysis: The extraordinary nature of interference with an acquittal and the reinforced presumption of innocence require the Court to examine whether the trial court committed a material error in appreciating the evidence. The prosecution material, including the recovery circumstances, the accused's conduct at the spot, the contemporaneous statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the corroborative testimony of the witnesses, was found to warrant fuller consideration. The departmental and revisional exoneration, having been based on benefit of doubt and not constituting a bar to criminal prosecution, did not preclude an independent assessment of the criminal case.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal against the acquittal was granted.

---