Appeal against acquittal in bribery case fails where evidence on demand, acceptance and recovery is contradictory.

In a bribery prosecution, the prosecution had to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through credible, consistent evidence because the complainant was unavailable for cross-examination. Material contradictions among trap witnesses and the investigating officer on recovery, together with circumstances casting doubt on the accused's presence and role, weakened the case. In an appeal against acquittal, a reasoned and plausible trial court view could not be reversed unless the appellate court properly reappraised the evidence and showed the acquittal was unjustified. The High Court's cursory reversal was therefore unsustainable, and the acquittal stood restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal in a corruption case where the complainant had died before trial and the prosecution evidence contained material contradictions on demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted money.

Analysis: The record showed that the complainant was unavailable for cross-examination, so the prosecution was required to establish demand and acceptance through credible and consistent evidence. The evidence of the trap witnesses and the investigating officer was not uniform on the place of recovery of the currency notes, and the surrounding circumstances, including the accused's transfer and relief before the date of , created serious doubt about his presence and competence to deal with the matter. In an appeal against acquittal, interference was not warranted unless the trial court's view was unreasonable. The trial court had given detailed reasons and its appreciation of evidence was a possible view. The High Court reversed the acquittal in a cursory manner without meeting the reasoning of the trial court or reappraising the evidence as required.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in setting aside the acquittal; the trial court's view was sustainable and the conviction could not be restored on the evidence led.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was restored because the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by reliable and cogent evidence, and the appellate interference with the acquittal was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, a reasoned and plausible view taken by the trial court cannot be reversed unless the appellate court reappraises the evidence and demonstrates that the acquittal is unjustified; where the prosecution evidence lacks credibility and contains material contradictions, conviction for bribery cannot be sustained.

---