https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173999 SC held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal on the evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The trap evidence was found materially unsatisfactory: the alleged anthracene marks were not convincingly proved, the prosecution version was inconsistent on how the notes were handled, and the complaint, panchnama and oral testimony did not fully match. The panch witnesses, police witness and complainant were not consistent on important particulars, so the prosecution case lacked reliability. In an appeal against acquittal, due weight must be given to the trial court's view and the infirmities supporting the accused; applying that standard, the conviction could not stand and the accused was acquitted. en-us Mon, 01 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:30:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173999 SC held that the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal on the evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The trap evidence was found materially unsatisfactory: the alleged anthracene marks were not convincingly proved, the prosecution version was inconsistent on how the notes were handled, and the complaint, panchnama and oral testimony did not fully match. The panch witnesses, police witness and complainant were not consistent on important particulars, so the prosecution case lacked reliability. In an appeal against acquittal, due weight must be given to the trial court's view and the infirmities supporting the accused; applying that standard, the conviction could not stand and the accused was acquitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173999