Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 378—Appeal against acquittal—Interference—In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC of the CrPC, the scope of the appellate Court is to the extent that the judgment of acquittal should not be ordinarily interfered with unless the findings in such judgment are shown to be arrived at by incorrect or perverse appreciation of material on record and the law.
[Para 22]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) & 13(2)—Illegal gratification—Appeal against acquittal—Prosecution can succeed only when it establishes both demand and acceptance of a bribe which are a sine qua non for establishing commission of an offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act—In case the complainant turns hostile, it will be permissible for prosecution to prove demand by way of other evidence either documentary or oral or circumstantial in nature—Key witness has turned hostile—Proof of demand was sought to be established by way of evidence of complainant—Present case is not one in which a trap was laid by a law enforcement agency following legal procedure in terms of pre-trap proceedings, independent witnesses, shadow witnesses, hand-wash etc.—Evidence of complainant, as correctly noted by the Special Judge, is in the nature of hearsay evidence—Other piece of evidence strongly relied upon by prosecution is the video cassette recording, which had been allegedly made by complainant showing that respondents received alleged bribe from key witness—Fact that the said cassette was not supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be admitted as secondary evidence, as it had come on record that there was no evidence that the recording contained in the cassette was the original recording—Contention of APP for the State with respect to the fact that objection with regard to admissibility of video cassette was not taken at the first opportunity is not sustainable as perusal of examination-in-chief of complainant shows that defence had objected to the mode of proof at the time when the video cassette was sought to be played—Prosecution in order to succeed in the present appeal could not demonstrate the judgment of the trial court suffered from any perversity or illegality—No ground found to interfere with impugned judgment—Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 26 to 30]