Acquittal in gold seizure case upheld where inconsistent officer testimony and lack of corroboration defeated appellate interference.

Interference with an acquittal requires perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence or disregard of material proof. In this Gold (Control) Act prosecution, the oral evidence of two excise officers was materially inconsistent on the place and manner of the alleged throwing of gold, who recovered it, and whether their personal search had been completed. The independent panch witness did not support the prosecution, no further corroboration was led, and the seizure memo also conflicted with the officers' version on timing and sequence. As no perversity was shown, the acquittal was upheld and the prosecution appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal for the alleged offence under Section 8(1) read with Section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested primarily on the oral testimony of two excise officers, but their versions were materially inconsistent on essential facts such as the place and manner of the alleged throwing of the gold, who had picked it up, and whether the personal search of the officers had been completed. The independent panch witness did not support the prosecution, and no other corroborative witness was examined. The seizure memo also created doubt because it did not accord with the timing and sequence spoken to by the officers. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only where the trial court's appreciation of evidence is perverse or ignores material proof, and no such perversity was shown.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and the prosecution appeal failed.

---