[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.2287 OF 2008 Pradeep Purushottam Pimparkhede ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Pradeep Pursuhottam Pimparkhede Petitioner in person. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the Petitioner in person and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is facing prosecution in Special Case No. 93 of 2004 pending before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mumbai. It pertains to FIR No.20 of 2003 of ACB, Mumbai. The said case is under sections 7(13)(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the complainant [-2-] Ashok Tiwari was facing prosecution in CC No. 162/P/2000. In the said case, the petitioner was the Prosecutor. The case of the complainant is that demand of money was made by the petitioner to ensure his acquittal. 4. The petitioner submitted that in the FIR, the informant has stated that the matter was called out in the Court at about 1.30 p.m. Thereafter, around 2 p.m. the matter came to be adjourned and at about 2.15 p.m. demand came to be made by the petitioner from the complainant. The petitioner submitted that Roznama of the case shows that the matter was called out at 11 a.m. and hence, case of the informant is clearly false. In my view, discrepancy in the timings would not be much of help to the petitioner at this stage as on perusal of the FIR as well as the post trap panchnama, it is seen that demand was made by the petitioner himself. In my view, the petitioner will have an opportunity of rebutting the evidence of the informant in cross-examination. Hence, no case is made out for quashing. Petition is rejected. 5. At this stage, the petitioner made oral request [-3-] for stay of the proceedings before the trial Court as he has preferred application for transfer of the case and the matter is pending before this Court. In view of the fact that petitioner has preferred an application for transfer of his case which is pending in this Court, the trial Court shall not proceed with the trial of Special Case No.93 of 2004 till 9.1.2009. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]