Acquittal in corruption case sustained as presumption rebutted and no interference was warranted on appeal.

An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal in a corruption prosecution unless the trial court's view is perverse or manifestly unreasonable. The prosecution's claim that the accused abused official position to obtain donations for a family-linked trust failed because the trust's accounts and charitable activities were shown to be transparent, the father's operation of the bank account was for convenience, and no incriminating material or proved demand/compulsion for donations emerged. The presumption against the accused under the corruption law was rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities, so the acquittal was sustained and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court in a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested on the allegation that the respondent had abused his official position to secure donations for a trust connected with his family and that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 should operate against him. The evidence, however, showed that the trust was functioning transparently, its accounts and charitable activities were maintained, and the respondent's father was authorised to operate the bank account only for convenience. The Investigating Officer had not visited the relevant place, no incriminating material was seized from the respondent, and the alleged compulsion or demand for donations was not established. The evidence of the few supporting witnesses was found insufficient to displace the trial court's view, and the presumption under Section 20 stood rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only where the judgment is perverse or manifestly unreasonable.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not warrant interference and was rightly sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the respondent's acquittal stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be rebutted by the accused on a preponderance of probabilities.

---