( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2244 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Pramod s/o Chandrakant Pohare RESPONDENT ..... Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the applicant/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 10th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The respondent was tried before the learned Special Judge, Jalna in Special Case (PCA) No. 7/2008 for offence punishable under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge held that the charge is not proved against the respondent and, therefore, he came to be acquitted. ( 2 ) 3. The case of the prosecution is that PW2 Prakash Piraji Jadhav runs a grocery shop. He had borrowed loans from the Maharashtra State Other Backward Class Finance and Development Corporation and Sangli Bank. On 31st May, 2007, he sought further loan amount because ha had repaid the earlier loans except an amount of Rs. 3500/- which was outstanding against him. The respondent demanded amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards his commission to sanction loan of Rs. 30,000/-. Allegedly, PW Prakash Jadhav approached the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.). He lodged report. A trap was arranged. The complainant – PW Prakash Jadhav and shadow witness went to the office of the respondent on 10-12-2007. The respondent was engaged in conversation with someone else. He instructed the complainant and the shadow witness to await for some time. The respondent was away from the room of the office because had had been talking with someone on the cell phone and had gone to the outside gallery. It was alleged that the respondent asked whether amount of Rs. 10,000/- was brought by the complainant. As per instruction of the respondent, the ( 3 ) complainant kept the said amount containing tainted currency notes on a paper which was laid on the table. Thereafter, the raiding party members were signaled and entered office of the respondent. 4. The learned Special Judge noticed that the defence of the respondent was probabalized by the circumstances. First, admittedly, the respondent had gone to the gallery while talking on mobile phone with someone else. His defence was that behind his back, the amount was put on the table in order to frame him in a false case. Admittedly, the tainted currency notes were not found on person of the respondent. No anthracene powder was detected on the finger of the respondent. He had not accepted the amount by his hand. The learned Special Judge also noticed that the sanction to the loan proposal was to be given by the Head Office of the said Corporation at Mumbai. Thus, the respondent was not the authority to sanction the loan. Moreover, for granting of loan to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-, ordinarily, nobody will pay amount of Rs. 10,000/- as commission. The circumstances brought on surface of the record are quite ( 4 ) unusual and, therefore, the learned Special Judge held that the first demand put forth by the respondent was not proved and so also, the acceptance of the bribe amount is not proved. Considering the reasoning of the learned Special Judge, there is no prima facie material to infer any patent error in the appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the leave to appeal is refused. The application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN2244-09