cran105.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Krushna Sajgir Gosavi ...Respondent ..... Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.P.P. for applicant Mr. P.S. Chavan, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 4th FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant-State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2 The trial court after assessing the evidence brought on record found that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the demand and acceptance. In para 36 of the impugned judgment, the trial court observed thus:- “36 Therefore, if the prosecution fails in proving successfully the initial demand of bribe of Rs.500/- made by accused no.1 cran105.10 -2- and it is abundantly established that accused did not have any authority to do any favour to complainant in the matter of mutation No.622, there was no question of demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.500/- as a motive or reward for the purpose of doing his work by the accused. Much less is there any probability of accused as such public servant obtaining for himself or otherwise any pecuniary advantage of Rs.500/- from complainant by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his position as such public servant.” 3 Therefore, upon perusal of para 36, as reproduced herein above, it would show that the work, which the prosecution claims to be with the accused was not work which he could have carried out in the official capacity. The prosecution has examined Naib Tahsildar. His evidence is at Exh.42. In his cross examination, it is deposed that the work of Talathi accused No.1 was already done by him in that matter. Talathi was not empowered to pas mutation as it is within the jurisdiction of Naib Tahsildar or Tahsildar. It is admitted that unless the mutation is passed, the entries cannot be effected and extract of record of rights with such mutation cannot be given to the party. 4 Apart from the above, the prosecution has failed to prove initial demand. There is no corroboration to the evidence of the complainant. All in all ,the the prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of evidence brought on record the trial court has cran105.10 -3- taken possible view. In my opinion, no interference is warranted. Hence, the application seeks leave to prefer appeal is rejected. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/