The strength of the criminal process lies in restraint as much as in scrutiny, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday while restoring the acquittal of a man in a corruption case of 1997.
The top court set aside a July 2011 order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had reversed a direction of acquittal passed by a trial court in Hyderabad and convicted the man for the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The high court had sentenced the man, who was an Assistant Commissioner of Labour from January 1996 to September 1996, to undergo one year's imprisonment.
Dealing with his plea challenging the high court's verdict, a bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Joymalya Bagchi said the trial court's view was both reasonable and firmly rooted in the evidence on record.
The bench said the high court failed to engage with the trial court's detailed reasoning and instead substituted its own inferences without addressing the "evidentiary gaps".
"The strength of the criminal process lies in restraint as much as in scrutiny. The appellant's acquittal, having stood on reasonable grounds, deserves to stand restored," the bench said, while restoring the order of acquittal passed by the trial court.
The prosecution had alleged that the appellant had demanded Rs 9,000 as bribe from the complainant for renewing some contract labour licenses.
The top court noted the trial court had acquitted the appellant in November 2003, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Aggrieved by the trial court order, the state moved moved the high court which convicted the appellant.
Referring to the evidence, the top court observed that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
"In the instant case, too, the sole basis of the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance is the narration of the complainant, a close scrutiny of which reveals serious infirmities," the bench said.
While allowing the appeal, it noted that contract labour regulation is "necessarily precarious", and an officer cannot be faulted and aspersed for requiring documentary proof of compliance, especially when the request is recorded in writing.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
