https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311941 In a bribery prosecution, the prosecution had to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through credible, consistent evidence because the complainant was unavailable for cross-examination. Material contradictions among trap witnesses and the investigating officer on recovery, together with circumstances casting doubt on the accused's presence and role, weakened the case. In an appeal against acquittal, a reasoned and plausible trial court view could not be reversed unless the appellate court properly reappraised the evidence and showed the acquittal was unjustified. The High Court's cursory reversal was therefore unsustainable, and the acquittal stood restored. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:11:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311941 In a bribery prosecution, the prosecution had to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through credible, consistent evidence because the complainant was unavailable for cross-examination. Material contradictions among trap witnesses and the investigating officer on recovery, together with circumstances casting doubt on the accused's presence and role, weakened the case. In an appeal against acquittal, a reasoned and plausible trial court view could not be reversed unless the appellate court properly reappraised the evidence and showed the acquittal was unjustified. The High Court's cursory reversal was therefore unsustainable, and the acquittal stood restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311941