jpc appln5327-09.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5327 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Ravindra Laxman Kanade ... Respondent Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the applicant- State Mr. Rahul S. Kate, for the respondent CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 5th August, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Saste, the learned APP for the applicant State and Mr. Kate, the learned advocate for the respondent. 2. The respondent was an accused in Special Case No.5 of 2007, which was decided by the learned Special Judge-I, Satara. The case was in respect of the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge, after the trial, held that the charges against the respondent were not proved and passed an order of acquittal. The State of Maharashtra, being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, have filed this application, seeking leave to appeal from the said judgment and order of acquittal. jpc appln5327-09.sxw 2 3. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order. I have glanced through the evidence. 4. The points for determination, as framed by the learned Special Judge, are reflected in para-7 of the impugned judgment. The learned Judge has, thereafter, discussed the evidence. In para 26 of the judgment, the learned Judge has examined the explanation of the matter, as given by the respondent in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The reasoning of the learned Judge is reflected from Para 27 onwards of the impugned judgment. 5. The learned Judge observed that the evidence was full of contradictions and omissions. Some of the factors, on which the learned Judge disbelieved the version of the prosecution, may be mentioned here. The complainant had, admittedly, failed to give the pre-arranged signal after the money was allegedly taken by respondent. The story is that the respondent accepted the tainted money and went to his house and thereafter, the investigating officer and the panchas went to his house and recovered the money, which was allegedly kept by the respondent in a rexine bag, which had been kept in the cupboard. The learned Judge observed that when the case of the prosecution was that after accepting the tainted amount, the respondent had gone on motorcycle, then, traces of Anthracene jpc appln5327-09.sxw 3 powder would have been found on the handle of the motorcycle, but, the investigating officer failed to inspect the handle of the motorcycle or the articles which were found in the personal search of the respondent. The learned Judge held the non examination of the cupboard and the handle of the motorcycle, in the light of ultra violet lamp, suspicious. 6. The learned Judge also observed that a tape recorder had been given to the complainant for recording the conversion, but no conversion was recorded in the said tape recorder. The tape recorder was also not produced before the Court. In addition to this, the learned Judge noticed certain discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and observed that the evidence of the Panch witness and that of the complainant differ from each other on material aspects. 7. The appreciation of evidence as done by the learned Judge does not appear to be suffering from any illegality or perversity. I am satisfied that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned Judge does not require any re-consideration or re-assessment. 8. In any case, the view of the matter, as taken by the learned Judge, is clearly a plausible view. No interference is warranted. 9. Leave is, therefore, refused. 10. The application is rejected. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)