1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 374 OF 2011 ( State of Maharashtra thr ACB Chandrapur Vs. Chandrashekhar Harimal Ughade & Ano. ) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri D. B. Patel APP for applicant/State. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. DATED: 1st JULY, 2011. . This is an application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 18.03.2011 passed by Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No. 10 of 2005. Heard learned APP for the applicant. Perused the judgment impugned in this appeal. Perused the copies of depositions of the witnesses made available to the Court by the learned APP. One Nikhil Dinkarrao Bottuwar an unemployed person wanted to get a Society by name "Sadguru Samarth 2 Vividh Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Chandrapur", registered and for that he was required to visit the office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies Chandrapur. The accused No. 1 (respondent no.1 herein) was serving as Senior Clerk and the accused no.2 (respondent no. 2 herein) was serving as Junior Clerk, at the relevant time. The complainant/Nikhil approached the Anti Corruption Department with the complaint that accused no.1 demanded bribe of Rs. 2500/- for clearing his file. Accordingly trap was laid. It is the prosecution case that accused no.1 was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount. After investigation and after obtaining sanction the charge sheet was submitted before the Special Judge. Prosecution examined six witnesses. The learned Special Judge held that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt to show that the accused persons made demand of Rs. 2500/- and thereafter an amount of Rs. 2500/- was accepted. He, therefore, proceeded to acquit both the accused. In this way judgment is impugned in this appeal. Perusal of the evidence of complainant shows that 3 he did not fully support the prosecution case, therefore, learned APP was required to seek permission of the Court to put questions, in the nature of cross examination, to him. In examination-in-chief he did not speak that accused had accepted the money. What is appearing in his evidence is that after the accused left his table on receiving a call from his superior, the complainant had left the money below his file. Since he did not support the prosecution case he was required to put leading questions in the nature of suggestions. In fact, the entire case of the prosecution was suggested to him who is the main witness and he answered in affirmative. In cross examination he again damaged the case of the prosecution by saying that after he reached to the office of the accused the latter had informed him that objections were yet to be removed. He also admitted that few files were carried by him when he visited the office of the accused. Things did not end here. Witness P. W. 2 Dinesh, deposed that when he reached to the office of the accused there was a talk between accused no.1 and the complainant about the removal of the objections. Then the accused was called by the superior. He then went to 4 the toilet. In his presence neither there was demand of the bribe amount nor acceptance of the bribe. He was also declared hostile. Learned APP was permitted to put leading questions to him to which the witness went on answering in the affirmative. This being the state of evidence, learned Special Judge appears to be right in holding that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no case is made out warranting interference with the order of acquittal. Leave is refused. JUDGE svk 5