1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1805 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1804 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- Ambadas Ruprao Tayade ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for applicant. Mr Joydeep Chatterji, advocate for respondent. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 2nd September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This is an application for delay condonation. The delay is of 22 days. By accepting the explanation given in the application, the delay is condoned. 2. The prosecution seeks leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 2nd January, 2010, rendered by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.9/2006, whereby the respondent has been acquitted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Having heard the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel and on going through the impugned judgment and other 2 material, it is explicit that the complainant, namely, P.W.1-Vasant Ingle has obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from Mahatma Phule Backward Class Development Corporation, Jalgaon. The respondent was working as Manager of the said Corporation at the relevant time. It is also manifest that the repayment of the loan was not being made. The recovery notices were issued to the complainant and guarantors. It was the case of the prosecution that when the complainant expressed his inability to repay the amount then the respondent-accused demanded an amount of Rs. 1000/- towards expenditure. It was paid. Again the respondent(accused) informed the complainant that he would start recovery proceedings, if the due installments are not paid and will issue the notices to the guarantors. The complainant requested him not to issue notices to the guarantors. Thereafter, the respondent demanded bribe of Rs.2000/- for the non-issuance of such notices. The complainant says that he paid Rs.1500/- at the relevant time and agreed to pay remaining amount of Rs.500/- at the subsequent stage. It is alleged that on the day of incident i.e. 21st June, 2006, the complainant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged report (Exh.9). Trap was made and the respondent was caught in the office premises while being in possession of tainted currency notes of Rs.500/-. 3 4. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent was insisting for repayment of loan amount, which was outstanding against complainant. The defence of the respondent was that at the relevant time, the complainant paid an amount towards part of payment of loan amount and immediately, therefore, he directed issuance of receipts to him by the staff member i.e. D.W.1 Kalyan Sing Pawar. It is pertinent to note that the complainant himself admits that at the relevant time, the respondent immediately told him to obtain the receipt of the said amount and left the premises of the office. According to the respondent, he was in hurry to attend the meeting, and therefore, he directed issuance of receipt of amount by D.W. 1-Kalyan Singh Pawar. Considering the admissions of the complainant and statement of D.W. 1-Kalyan Sigh Pawar, the defence is duly probablised. Secondly, the evidence on record purports to show that the notices were already issued to the guarantors. Obviously, there was no reason for the complainant to request the respondent to stop issuance of notices in order to avoid the trouble which the complainant was likely to receive from guarantors. Nor the guarantors have come forward to say that due to issuance of notices, they were after the complainant. Considering attending circumstances, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the defence of respondent is porbablised. Under the circumstances his acquittal 4 can not be faulted with. 5. In the result, leave to appeal is refused and appeal is deemed as disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri1805.10