Leave against acquittal in a PMLA case may be granted where material electronic evidence was excluded or misappreciated.

Leave to appeal against acquittal in a PMLA prosecution may be granted where the prosecution shows an arguable case that the trial court excluded or misappreciated material documentary and electronic evidence. The challenge centred on a forensic audit report and related bank records, which were treated as inadmissible despite later certification. The court treated the dispute as one requiring deeper scrutiny of whether admissible material had been ignored in a serious economic offence case, and granted leave so the proposed appeal could proceed on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave should be granted to the prosecution to appeal against the acquittal in the PMLA case, having regard to the evidentiary challenge concerning the forensic audit report and other material relied upon by the prosecution.

Analysis: The prosecution assailed the acquittal on the ground that the Special Court had treated the forensic audit report and related bank records as inadmissible merely because they were not originally certified, notwithstanding subsequent certification. The decision turned on whether the trial court had ignored material evidence of significance in a large economic offence case and whether the refusal of leave would be justified despite the prosecution showing an arguable case warranting deeper scrutiny. The Court treated the matter as one requiring examination of the trial court's appreciation of admissible material and the consequences of exclusion of the electronic and documentary evidence relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was granted and the prosecution was permitted to challenge the acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The criminal original petition succeeded, and the proposed appeal against acquittal was permitted to proceed for consideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Leave to appeal against acquittal may be granted where the prosecution demonstrates an arguable case that the trial court excluded or misappreciated material evidence, especially in an economic offence involving serious documentary and electronic evidence.

---