Demand and acceptance of bribe not proved; leave to appeal against acquittal was rightly refused.

Leave to appeal was refused in a corruption prosecution because the evidence did not prove demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. Material inconsistencies existed between the complainant and shadow witness on the alleged demand, the meeting with the accused, and the alleged acceptance. The shadow witness did not corroborate the acceptance and said he was outside during the crucial interaction, while no call detail record supported the alleged telephonic conversation. The fact that the registration certificate had already been issued before the trap further weakened the prosecution case, and no patent perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the acquittal of the accused in a corruption prosecution where demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were not proved.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested on alleged demand and acceptance of bribe for issuance of a registration certificate. The evidence showed material inconsistencies between the complainant and the shadow witness on the alleged demand, the meeting with the accused, and the alleged acceptance. The shadow witness did not corroborate the alleged acceptance by the principal accused and admitted that he was outside during the crucial interaction. There was also no CDR evidence of the alleged telephonic conversation, and the required certificate had already been issued before the trap, weakening the prosecution version. On this material, no patent perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence was shown.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was rightly refused and no interference was warranted with the acquittal.

---