https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172137 In criminal matters, concurrent findings of fact under Article 136 may be interfered with where they are perverse, based on misreading or improper appreciation of evidence, or otherwise unsafe to sustain. Applying that standard, the Court found the prosecution case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification unconvincing: the accused's claim of casual leave was supported by documentary and oral evidence, the adverse inference drawn below was unwarranted, and the trap recovery was weakened by significant evidentiary gaps, including the absence of phenolphthalein treatment and circumstances supporting a theory of planting. Documentary material also suggested the underlying work had already been done, undermining the prosecution foundation. en-us Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172137 In criminal matters, concurrent findings of fact under Article 136 may be interfered with where they are perverse, based on misreading or improper appreciation of evidence, or otherwise unsafe to sustain. Applying that standard, the Court found the prosecution case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification unconvincing: the accused's claim of casual leave was supported by documentary and oral evidence, the adverse inference drawn below was unwarranted, and the trap recovery was weakened by significant evidentiary gaps, including the absence of phenolphthalein treatment and circumstances supporting a theory of planting. Documentary material also suggested the underlying work had already been done, undermining the prosecution foundation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172137