Corruption acquittal stands absent proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, a contractor who had submitted bills for bore-well work, was asked by accused No. 1 for ₹4,200 and by accused No. 2 for ₹600 in connection with payment of his bills.

After the complainant approached the Lokayukta, a trap was arranged.

The trial court acquitted both accused, finding the evidence insufficient to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

The State appealed under Section 378 CrPC.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification for extending official favour.

2. Whether the trial court’s acquittal was a possible view on the evidence and therefore should stand on appeal.

The alleged offences were under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The court applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal, including that acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence; an appellate court may reappraise the evidence but cannot reverse an acquittal merely because another view is possible; and interference is warranted only where the evidence permits no conclusion other than guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court also proceeded on the principle that proof of demand and acceptance is necessary to establish the bribery charge and that recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient.

The High Court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s assessment.

The complainant’s account of demand and acceptance was materially at variance with his prior statement, marked as Ex. D3, which indicated that he obtained the cheque from accused No. 1 without recording the alleged demand.

The witnesses also differed about how and when the tainted money was recovered and who handled it.

The positive hand-wash test and recovery could not cure the lack of reliable proof of demand and acceptance.

Given these evidentiary gaps, the trial court’s view was a possible one under the appellate standard applicable to acquittals.

It held that no legal or factual error warranting appellate intervention had been shown and dismissed the State’s appeal, leaving the acquittals of both accused undisturbed.