Appellate interference with acquittal requires perversity or unreasonableness; trial court findings were left undisturbed.

Interference with an acquittal in appeal is justified only where the trial court's findings are shown to be perverse or unreasonable. The trial court rejected the prosecution case on several grounds, including defects in search and seizure, non-examination of attesting witnesses, defects in sanction, delay in sanction and complaint, and the evidentiary value of the alleged voluntary statement. On the record, no perversity or unreasonableness was established, so the acquittal was not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The trial court had rejected the prosecution case on multiple grounds, including the manner of search and seizure, non-examination of attesting witnesses, defects in the sanction, delay in sanction and complaint, and the evidentiary value of the alleged voluntary statement. In appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the finding of the trial court is shown to be perverse or unreasonable. On the record, no such perversity or unreasonableness was established.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be disturbed.

---