1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1323 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Balasaheb Babu Koli ..Respondent Ms.A.A.Mane, A.P.P, for the State None for respondent CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29TH JULY, 2008 P.C. . Heard. 2. Tankers bearing Registration No.MCU-3193 and MH-04-2422 are owned by the complainant and he used to supply water in the village while the accused person was issuing necessary orders under the signatures of the Tahsildar. The claim of the complainant is that his tankers were assigned to Tahsil Office and the accused was demanding Rs.1000/- per month and such demand was made in the month of February, 2003 to the extent of Rs.3000/- which on mere calculation is not correct. The 2 complainant was Sarpanch of village Morgaon and there were six Grampanchayat members and all the members passed “No Confidence Motion” as he was rude and he was earning Rs.750/- upon his tanker as rent and he was supplying water to the Garden and costruction work which resulted in complaint lodged against said Sarpanch which is at Exh.21. The said application was received by Tahsil Office on 20th December, 2002. It is thus clear as even found by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge that the complainant was earning the rent of his tanker from the government, instead of supplying water to the needy villagers, he was supplying water to the gardens and also for construction work. His contract was kept in abeyance. As per the prosecution case, accused accepted the bribe on 3rd February, 2003 near the tea stall, still the statement of tea stall owner was recorded on 23rd April, 2003 without assigning any reason. Even the statement of Sarpanch was also recorded belatedly. If the incident dated 3rd February, 2003 was witnessed by the tea stall owner then he should have given version to that effect but belated 3 statement speaks volume against the prosecution. Inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses has made the learned Ad-hoc District Judge to raise a doubt and he found the evidence to be unworthy. Another important feature noted is that the accused at the material time when caught hold by the Anti Corruption Officer, he told the Anti Corruption Officer that he was feeling giddiness and he was referred to Government Hospital for treatment. The complainant who claims to be present there does not describe this event which naturally raised a doubt that the complainant was present there on 3rd February, 2003 when the alleged incident of accepting bribe has taken place. The findings recorded by the Ad-hoc District Judge and Special Judge, Sangli in the set of above facts cannot be said to be erroneous. Leave to appeal is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)