:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 989 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2007 Gangaram Hanumant Jadhav ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. V.V. Purwant for applicant. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : October 16, 2007. Date : October 16, 2007. Date : October 16, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard Mr. Purwant the learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the depositions of PW 1 - complainant and PW 2 - witness. PW 4 was the authority who had granted the sanction for the prosecution of the applicant. Mr. Purwant submitted that there was contradiction between the depositions of PW 1 and PW 2 and in support of this he has taken me through the reasoning set out in the impugned order of conviction and sentence and more particularly in para 16. Prima facie, I do not find any force in the :2: contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. Prima facie it appears that the trap has been proved and an amount of Rs.3000/- was recovered from the pocket of the applicant (anthracin powder notes) I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to suspend the order of sentence and release the applicant on bail. . Hence, the application is rejected. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)