https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382414 Interference with an acquittal in a corruption prosecution was declined because the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged demand was not conclusively established before or during the trap, the complainant's account contained material improvements, and the recorded conversation did not reliably prove demand, especially as the original recording device was not produced. The Court also noted that the prosecution did not satisfactorily establish motive or the respondent's decisive role in the clearance process, while the defence material supported the view that the respondent was not the final authority. In appellate review of acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or illegal; where two views are possible, a plausible acquittal will stand. en-us Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382414 Interference with an acquittal in a corruption prosecution was declined because the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged demand was not conclusively established before or during the trap, the complainant's account contained material improvements, and the recorded conversation did not reliably prove demand, especially as the original recording device was not produced. The Court also noted that the prosecution did not satisfactorily establish motive or the respondent's decisive role in the clearance process, while the defence material supported the view that the respondent was not the final authority. In appellate review of acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or illegal; where two views are possible, a plausible acquittal will stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382414