1 crap1215.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1215 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant VERSUS Udhav Kisanrao Tandale ...Respondent ..... Shri B.V.Wagh, A.P.P. for applicant Shri S.Y.Mahajan, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 30 th June, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant/State seeking leave to file appeal, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal, dated 28.12.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad, in Special Case (AC) No. 18 of 2009, thereby acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2 crap1215.11 3 I have perused the impugned judgment and order,dated 28.12.2010 and the Record and Proceedings with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 4 The accused was working as an Assistant in TILR office at Bhoom, Taluka Bhoom District Osmanabad at the relevant time and it is alleged that he demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs. 250/- and copying charges Rs.250/- from the complainant, namely Gopichand for supplying the certified copies of map of Sy. Nos. 56 and 125 of Bhoom, along with copies of Gunakar book and statements. 5 To substantiate the charges levelled against the prosecution, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, as follows :- PW1 Gopichand Baliram Lekurwale, Complainant PW2 Vasant Trimbakrao Mulay, Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, Sanctioning Authority. PW3 Smt. Kavita Tanaji Nalge, Panch PW4 Babynanda Shankarrao Ghule, Peon, TILR Office,Bhoom 3 crap1215.11 PW5 Shankar Bhimrao Gaikwad, Staff Member from TILR Office, Paranda PW6 H.C. Govind Ganpatrao More, shadow witness 6 It is alleged by the complainant that on demand of the accused, he handed over amount of Rs.500/- and the accused took that amount by his right hand and counted the same by his both hands and put the same in the pocket of his Safari Shirt. PW3 Smt. Kavita Nalge, panch witness also stated that accused accepted the said amount by his right hand and counted it by both the hands and kept it in the left side pocket of his shirt and there was Pista colour Safari on his person. 7 In the said context, learned Trial Court observed that accused is handicapped person by his left hand and he is lacking fingers of that hand which makes practically impossible for him to count cash by his both hands, and hence, the version of the complainant that accused took the amount by his right hand and counted the same by his both hands and then put it in the pocket of his Safari Shirt, is not safely believable, and it is more so, because it is admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination that the accused did not demand bribe when he went to him on 21.5.2009, 4 crap1215.11 and the said observation made by the Trial Court, apparently, cannot be faulted with. 8 Moreover, it is canvassed that the alleged trap was laid for another lady employee, namely Mali, in the said office and it was not meant for the accused and pertinently PW3 Panch witness Smt. Kavita Nalge has stated in her cross-examination that after going to the office of ACB, she came to know that anti corruption case was being made against a woman, and therefore, she was required to work as woman panch, and apparently, there is substance in the said submission. 9 It also appears that there is no corroboration in respect of alleged demand and acceptance in the testimonies of the complainant and the panch witness, and therefore, the Trial Court rightly observed that there are discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution case, and hence, rightly acquitted the accused, and apparently, there is no flaw in the said reasoning and the finding given by the Trial Court in that respect cannot be faulted with. 10 In the circumstances, after scrutinizing, analyzing and appreciating the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused is a possible view and same 5 crap1215.11 does not appear to be perverse, and hence, no interference is called for in the appellate jurisdiction. 11 In the circumstances, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and hence, same deserves to be dismissed. 12 In the result, present application is dismissed and leave to file appeal is refused. Present application stands disposed of accordingly. R. and P. be sent back to the concerned court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1215.11