1 Appln 168-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.168 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Sampat Bali Jadhav ..Respondent Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, Advocate, for the Applicant - State Mr.S.D.Rupwate i/b. Mr.Santosh Parad, Advocate, for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. This is an application for leave to file an Appeal against acquittal of the respondent ordered by the learned Special Judge, Sangli, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Judge upon appreciation of evidence found that the evidence of the first informant and the panch at the trap was 2 Appln 168-2010 discrepant. He also found that there was non- application of mind while according sanction. As far as discrepancy in the evidence of PW-1 panch at the trap Sunil Patharwat and the first informant Netaji Kumbhar are concerned, both gave different account about the payment of bribe money. While Sunil Patharwat states that they went to the election branch, Tahsil office, Vita. However, nobody was in the election branch, hence they all went in Tahsil office where they found accused. Accused made them waited for 45 minutes. They all sat on one bench in the verahanda. Accused told them to go to election branch. Netaji Kumbhar, however, does not state having gone to the election branch. He states that they all went to the accused. Accused told them to wait for 10-15 minutes. They waited outside the office of accused for 10-15 minutes. After 10-15 minutes the Complainant again went to the accused and accused told him he should go and wait in the election branch. The Complainant 3 Appln 168-2010 states that from there, he along with accused, panch and his brother went to the election branch. In such a situation the learned Counsel for the respondent rightly states that though another view of the matter could have been taken, since the learned Judge, who had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in person has disbelieved them, it could not be said that the reasons given are perverse or improbable. 2. This is not all. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, PW-3, who was Collector at the relevant time and authorized to accord sanction, admitted in the cross examination that he had not received papers from ACB, Pune up to the time of issuance of sanction order on 23rd May, 2007. Thus, it is not clear as to how the officer could be held to have applied his mind before according sanction. View taken by the learned Special Judge is not perverse or improbable. 4 Appln 168-2010 Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. 3. Criminal Application is disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)