1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3698 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.761 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra Applicant Versus Mojes Mayappa Kamble Respondent Mrs.S.S.Autade, A.P.P. for applicant-State. Mr.Sachin J. Salgare, advocate holding for Smt.S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 07th July, 2009. P.C.: 1 Heard Mrs.S.S.Autade, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the applicant-State and Mr.S.J.Salgare, learned Counsel holding for Smt.S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the Respondent. 2 This is an application seeking leave to file appeal against order of acquittal recorded by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Ahmednagar, in Special Case No.11/2003 on 12.02.2008. 3 Respondent-accused was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is alleged that accused, who was serving as employee of Mahatma Phule Backward Class Development Corporation Limited, Ahmednagar, has accepted an amount of Rs.2000/- towards illegal gratification from the informant for approving his loan proposal. 4 I have perused the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. On perusal of the judgment, it transpires that the prosecution has not established that the accused has made demand of amount from informant. It also transpires that accused was not in fact dealing with the loan proposal of the complainant and on the day of acceptance of amount, loan proposal of the informant was already sanctioned and he had already 2 received cheque in respect of subsidy amount. The defence of the accused that there is some transaction between brother of the complainant and accused and amount of Rs.2000/-, which was accepted from the complainant, is towards the money recoverable from his brother, appears to be acceptable. The witness for the prosecution has specifically admitted in his cross examination that the accused has never made demand of the amount from the complainant, in his presence. In the absence of proof in respect of demand by the accused, prosecution case cannot be said to have been established. The trial Judge has set out detailed reasons while directing acquittal of the accused. Reasons recorded by the trial Court appear to be proper and based on appreciation of evidence placed on record. In the facts and circumstances of this case, no interference is called for in the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Merely because some other view is also possible, is not a ground for causing interference in the order of acquittal. 5 Application seeking leave to file appeal, therefore, stands rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/criappln369808