https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41406 Interference with an acquittal requires perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence or disregard of material proof. In this Gold (Control) Act prosecution, the oral evidence of two excise officers was materially inconsistent on the place and manner of the alleged throwing of gold, who recovered it, and whether their personal search had been completed. The independent panch witness did not support the prosecution, no further corroboration was led, and the seizure memo also conflicted with the officers' version on timing and sequence. As no perversity was shown, the acquittal was upheld and the prosecution appeal failed. en-us Fri, 15 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:45:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41406 Interference with an acquittal requires perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence or disregard of material proof. In this Gold (Control) Act prosecution, the oral evidence of two excise officers was materially inconsistent on the place and manner of the alleged throwing of gold, who recovered it, and whether their personal search had been completed. The independent panch witness did not support the prosecution, no further corroboration was led, and the seizure memo also conflicted with the officers' version on timing and sequence. As no perversity was shown, the acquittal was upheld and the prosecution appeal failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41406