IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2913 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Ashok Mahadev Shinde .. Respondent Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, A.P.P for the applicant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 12th February 2009. : 12th February 2009. : 12th February 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned A.P.P for the State. The application is for leave to prefer an appeal against order dated 27th March 2008 by which the respondent accused has been acquitted for the offences under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of th Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The acquittal is mainly on the ground that the complainant himself did not support the prosecution and he turned hostile. The complainant deposed before the Court as regards the procedure followed prior to the trap laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau. However, he did not depose before the Court as regards the demand made by the accused on the date of the incident and clearly stated that he kept (2) a note of Rs.100/- on the table of the accused. 2. The submission of the learned A.P.P is that apart from the fact that the complainant turned hostile, the evidence of the other witnesses, including panch witness clearly establishes demand of the bribe and acceptance of bribe and therefore, once the said evidence is accepted there was no reason for the learned Judge to acquit the respondent. 3. I have considered the submissions. I have perused the notes of evidence. As stated earlier, the complainant has not deposed regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe at the time of trap. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Special Judge has carefully scrutinised the evidence of the other witnesses and in particular P.W.No.3 and 4. The learned Judge after perusal of the said evidence came to the conclusion that the large portion of the pre-trap panchnama has been incorrectly recorded. The learned Judge also considered the evidence of P.W.No.4. The learned Judge found that considering his testimony, the testimony of P.W.No.3 who was the witness to the trap (3) cannot be believed. 4. All this has to be appreciated in the light of the fact that the complainant himself did not support prosecution case regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The conclusion drawn by the learned Judge is certainly a possible conclusion. No interference is called for. Application is rejected. (A.S.Oka,J)