Appellate interference with acquittal in corruption cases remains limited where demand and acceptance are not proved reliably.

Interference with an acquittal in a corruption prosecution was declined because the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged demand was not conclusively established before or during the trap, the complainant's account contained material improvements, and the recorded conversation did not reliably prove demand, especially as the original recording device was not produced. The Court also noted that the prosecution did not satisfactorily establish motive or the respondent's decisive role in the clearance process, while the defence material supported the view that the respondent was not the final authority. In appellate review of acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or illegal; where two views are possible, a plausible acquittal will stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a corruption case called for interference in appeal in light of the evidence on demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the admissibility and reliability of the recorded conversation, and the scope of appellate review against acquittal.

Analysis: The evidence did not conclusively establish a specific demand of bribe either before or during the trap proceedings. The complainant's version contained material improvements, the recorded conversation did not satisfactorily prove demand, and the original recording device was not produced. The Court also found that the prosecution did not satisfactorily establish the motive or the respondent's decisive role in the clearance process, while the defence material supported the view that the respondent was not the final authority. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only where the trial court's view is perverse or illegal, and where two views are possible the appellate court will not substitute its own view for a plausible one.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal did not suffer from perversity warranting interference.

---