1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.297 OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant. Versus Ravindreddy Ramareddy Kasareddy ... Respondent. ... Mr.K.S. Patil, A.P.P.for the appellant. Mr.M.V.Ghatge, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 31.08.2009. PER COURT 1. The appeal is preferred against the judgment of acquittal rendered in Special Case (ACB) No.15/2004, whereby the Respondent has been acquitted for offence punishable U/s 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide judgment dated 30.6.2007, rendered by the learned Special Judge, 2 Nanded. 2. Heard. 3. The prosecution case in the trial Court was that P.W.1 Haibatrao was pursuing pension case of his niece by name Pushpa. Her husband died in harness after completing 13 years of service. In the context of her pension case, P.W. Haibatrao met the Respondent on 22.5.2004 with a view to know about progress of the pension proposal. The Respondent was then working as Senior Assistant in Panchayat Division of Zilla Parishad, Nanded. The Respondent demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) from P.W. Haibatrao for forwarding the pension proposal to the higher office. After negotiations, the bribe money was settled at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand). He paid Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) at the relevant time to the Respondent and agreed to pay balance amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) on subsequent date. On 27.5.2004, the Respondent told P.W.Haibatrao that the pension proposal was 3 forwarded but has been returned due to certain defects. He again demanded Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand). Thereupon, P.W.Haibatrao assured to Respondent to pay the amount after receiving it from brother of Pushpa, who was to arrive. The Respondent called upon P.W. Haibatrao to visit his office in the evening time at about 5/5-30 p.m. P.W.Haibatrao approached the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged a report. A trap was laid. The Respondent allegedly accepted the tainted currency notes of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) and kept the same in the left side pant packet. The tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession immediately after he was held by the members of the raiding party. 4. Considering the evidence tendered by the prosecution, it emerges that P.W. Haibatrao (complainant) had made similar complaints to the ACB against one Gautam Jadhav, Block Education Officer and one Gangadhar Javalekar. A trap was laid against Gangadhar, in the context of same grievance, namely, that while approving the proposal for pension payable to Pushpa, illegal 4 gratification was demanded. The learned Special Judge noticed that P.W. Haibatrao was probably in a habit of making such complaints. It is worthy to be noted that the Respondent immediately disclosed that he had not accepted the amount as a bribe money. He had explained that P.W. Haibatrao attempted to thrust money in his pocket. That was the immediate conduct of the Respondent. Secondly, the Respondent did not object or express any suspicion about the shadow panch, who had accompanied P.W. Haibatrao at the material time. There is variance between the version of P.W.Haibatrao and P.W.2 Pandit in the context of the conversation which took place between the Respondent and P.W. Haibatrao. The version of P.W. Pandit revealed that P.W.Haibatrao narrated to him that an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) was to be paid to the Respondent and that amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) was already paid by him. Moreover, the pension papers were already forwarded by the Respondent. There was holiday on 22.5.2004 and hence, it was rather improbable that the Respondent was contacted in the office 5 and had called P.W. Haibatrao to pay the amount in the evening between 5/5-30 p.m. The prosecution did not explain as to how on a holiday, the Respondent was attending the office and what was the special reason for such exceptional efficiency which has become rare commodity now a days. Considering these reasons, the acquittal of the Respondent can not be faulted with. Leave is refused. The appeal dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crappeal29709