Summary
The Supreme Court restored acquittal in a corruption prosecution after finding material contradictions in the trap evidence and an unexplained delay in testing the accused’s hands. Recovery of currency and a phone from a drawer did not by itself prove demand and knowing acceptance. The trial court’s assessment was a reasonable possible view, which the High Court could not replace merely by preferring another. The separate objection concerning later alteration of the conviction was left undecided.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly reversed an acquittal where the trap evidence permitted reasonable doubt.
- Whether recovery alone established the alleged bribery and supported the statutory presumption.
Provisions considered
- Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), as applicable to the alleged offence, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The Court required proof of demand and knowing acceptance on the record before it, finding recovery alone insufficient where the substantive evidence was unreliable. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12)
- Section 20(1), as applicable to the alleged offence, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The necessary foundational facts for the presumption were absent where demand and acceptance had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶ 12)
Held
- An appellate court may reappraise evidence but must respect the reinforced presumption of innocence following acquittal. Where the trial court’s conclusion is a reasonable possible view, disagreement alone cannot justify substituting conviction. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- Material contradictions, access by others to the open office, and the unexplained interval before the chemical test supported reasonable doubt. The articles were produced from the drawer at the officers’ direction; recovery did not cure the evidentiary defects. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12)
- The prosecution failed to establish demand and acceptance of the money and phone beyond reasonable doubt. On this record, the trial acquittal was a possible view and should have been maintained. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The Court did not decide the objection under Section 362 CrPC to the later conviction orders because the appellant succeeded on merits. An omission in the amended memorandum did not defeat relief against the earlier connected orders in the circumstances. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeals allowed; all impugned conviction and sentence orders set aside, and immediate release directed unless custody was required in another case.