1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.761 OF 2003. The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant. Versus Shaikh Mushataq Lalmiya ... Respondent. ... Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the Appelalnt. Mr.R.P.Adgaonkar, advocate holding for Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 08.10.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The Respondent - Shaikh Mushataq Lalmiya, was attached to the Civil Hospital, Latur, at the relevant time. He was peon working under the Civil Surgeon. The complainant Babasaheb Patil was also working as Peon in Soil 2 Conservation Department at Latur. He had submitted medical bill for reimbursement. The case of the prosecution is that for obtaining counter signature of the Civil Surgeon for the medical bill of Rs.3,330/- (Rupees three thousand three hundred thirty), the Respondent demanded illegal gratification of Rs.450/- (Rupees four hundred fifty). He represented that an amount of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred) was required to be paid to the Civil Surgeon, whereas his commission was Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty) for doing the said official work. Complainant Babasaheb allegedly paid Rs.100/- (Rupees hundred) on 30.11.1992. He lateron approached the Anti Corruption Bureau. A trap was laid. The amount of Rs.350/- (Rupees three hundred fifty) was given to the Respondent (accused) on 2.1.1993. Before the raiding party members rushed to the place, the currency notes were thrown away by the Respondent. They were collected from the ground. The fingers of the Respondent and the currency notes indicated bluish sparkle when examined under ultraviolet lamp. A post trap panchanama was drawn. After certain investigation and on obtaining sanction, 3 the Respondent was prosecuted for the offence punishable U/s 7, read with Section 13 (1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the Respondent was not competent to do the official work nor there was any evidence to indicate that he acted as agent of the Civil Surgeon. The testimony of complainant P.W. Babasaheb showed that he was annoyed with the conduct of the Civil Surgeon. The admission of PW Babasaheb would show that he was enraged due to conduct of the Civil Surgeon. It is pertinent to notice that the Civil Surgeon was examined. The versions of PW 1 Vinay, PW 5 Arjun made it clear that the Respondent had no role to play in the process of the medical reimbursement bill. The immediate conduct of the Respondent was also considered as indicative of his innocence and having regard to the reasons ascribed by the learned Special Judge, I do not find any substantial reason to entertain the appeal. There appears no serious fault with the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge. 4 3. In the result, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed and the appeal is also dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crappeal76103