1 cri appln 1820.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1820 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Sahebrao Prabhakar Pagare .. Respondent Smt. Y. M. Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2011. PER COURT : . This application is filed by the State seeking leave to appeal from the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge (P.C. Act) Aurangabad on 19.12.2009 in Special Case No. 07/2006. 2. It is not necessary to reproduce the facts, since in the impugned judgment facts have been extensively stated by the Trial Court. Suffice it to say that the complainant approached to the A. C. B. with a grievance that the original accused/respondent herein illegally demanded him Rs. 500/- for 2 cri appln 1820.10 not registering any offence in future. It is the case of prosecution that, while conducting raid the complainant was arrested by the respondent. He was kept in police lockup on 24.10.2005 and on next day he was released on furnishing surety in between 10.00 to 11.00 a.m. It is the allegation of the prosecution that, the respondent/accused told the complainant while releasing him on bail that if he fails to pay Rs. 500/- he will register another offence against the complainant. That was the motive told by the prosecution in this case and accordingly the amount was demanded and accepted and recovered by the prosecution. 2. After hearing the learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent, I am of the opinion that, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution was not cogent, sufficient to convict the respondent. Therefore, the Special Court has rightly acquitted the respondent. P.W. 1/complainant in his examination in chief before the Court has stated that, he was kept in lock up during night on 24.10.2005. On next day his brother Rustum Anna Varkate came there. He has taken his surety. At the relevant time, the accused had told him that he is released him now and he will also put him in lock up if the complainant fails to pay Rs. 500/- to him. That is the 3 cri appln 1820.10 reason told by the complainant and prosecution for alleged demand of Rs. 500/- by the respondent. However, in the cross examination of P.W. 1, he has stated thus, "my brother had not come in the police station on the day on which I was arrested. On next day PSI Gitte had released me on bail by accepting surety. On that day at about 5.00 p.m. the accused had met me. It was our first visit on that day." (emphasis supplied) 3. Therefore, if the evidence of P.W. 1 in his examination in chief is seen vis-a-vis his statement in the cross examination, that totally demolishes the case of the prosecution that on 25.10.2005 the respondent by accepting surety released the complainant on bail. It is categorically admitted by the complainant that, PSI Gite by accepting surety released him on bail. It is not in dispute that he was released in between 10.00 to 11.00 a.m. His admission in the cross examination that accused met him at 5.00 p.m. also shows that the respondent/accused did not grant him bail by accepting surety. If the conduct of the complainant is examined, his evidence cannot be believed. Therefore, entire prosecution case has to fail. That apart the counsel for the respondent is right in inviting my attention to that part of the evidence of the P.W. 1 in which he has admitted 4 cri appln 1820.10 that, there was darkness at the relevant time. There was load shedding. Therefore, so far demand and acceptance and recovery is concerned, entire prosecution story becomes doubtful. That apart, there is no independent corroboration to the evidence that there was demand of Rs. 500/-. For all these reasons, in my opinion, the application seeking leave to appeal is required to be rejected. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order, the findings recorded by the Special Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and defence taken by the respondent. Therefore, the application is devoid of merits and same stands rejected. [ S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Feb. 11