[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1462 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Vasant Shankar Patil ..Respondent ... Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for State Mr.Sachin B.Shetye Advocate for Respondent ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 06, 2008 DATE : JUNE 06, 2008 DATE : JUNE 06, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.1.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.2 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) r.w. Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The prosecution case is that the Respondent was [-2-] working as an Assistant Officer in the office of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hatnkangale and as such was a public servant. It is further the prosecution case that Respondent demanded Rs.500/- from the complainant in order to do some work in his official capacity. Hence, the complaint came to be filed. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State and the learned advocate for the Respondent-accused. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 4. The complainant in his evidence has admitted that he gave statement as per the instructions given by the police and in the office of the Government Pleader, he was told to give statement before the Court that the accused had met him earlier. The complainant has stated that he did not meet the accused prior to the incident of giving bribe and he did not know the accused. The complainant has stated that he read his statement even before the police before entering into the witness box and as per the said statement, he has [-3-] deposed before the Court. In the case of Zahiruddin Vs. Emperor; AIR 1947 PC 75, Zahiruddin Vs. Emperor; AIR 1947 PC 75, Zahiruddin Vs. Emperor; AIR 1947 PC 75, it has been held that ‘‘if the witnesses have read over their statements before giving depositions in the Court or if the police have told them about their statements before entering into box, then their depositions before the Court are inadmissible in evidence". 5. In the complaint, it is stated that accused demanded Rs.500/- to give acknowledgement whereas in the evidence, it has been brought on record by the prosecution that the accused demanded money for accepting the annual report which was produced by the complainant. It is seen that there is serious discrepancy between the evidence of the complainant, panch witness and the Investigating Officer. 6. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]