https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236167 Interference with an acquittal is warranted only if the findings are perverse, contrary to evidence, patently illegal, or based on an erroneous view of law and fact; the strengthened presumption of innocence after acquittal also applies, so no interference was justified. In corruption prosecutions, demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non, and mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient unless demand and acceptance are proved and the foundational facts for the statutory presumption are established; on the accepted defence version and the evidence of the witnesses, those ingredients were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the acquittal was upheld. en-us Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jul 2019 11:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236167 Interference with an acquittal is warranted only if the findings are perverse, contrary to evidence, patently illegal, or based on an erroneous view of law and fact; the strengthened presumption of innocence after acquittal also applies, so no interference was justified. In corruption prosecutions, demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non, and mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient unless demand and acceptance are proved and the foundational facts for the statutory presumption are established; on the accepted defence version and the evidence of the witnesses, those ingredients were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the acquittal was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236167