..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4617 OF 2006 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Laxman Yallappa Bhangale and Anr. ..Respondents. ... Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the Applicant-State. Mr.S.M.Sabrad, Adv. for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 13th June, 2008. DATED : 13th June, 2008. DATED : 13th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 22th June, 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (Under P.C. Act) Raigad, Alibag in Special Case No.5 of 1999. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judged acquitted respondents-orig. accused of the offence under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Heard the learned APP for the ..(2).. applicant-State. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 3. The prosecution case is that the complainant was working as a building contractor. Respondent No.1-orig.accused No.1 was working as Chief Officer in Nagar Parishad at Pen and respondent No.2-orig.accused No.2 was working as Peon in Nagar Parishad at Pen. The complainant had made an application to the Nagar Parishad at Pen for grant of permission for construction. The case of the complainant is that respondent No.1 demanded bribe of Rs.5000/- from him to grant permission. Hence, complaint came to be filed. Trap was arranged. The bribe amount was handed over to respondent No.1 who in turn handed it over to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 took the envelope in which the money was kept and went outside the office. He went to Xerox shop on the other side of road and he kept the envelope on the Xerox machine. It is the prosecution case that panch Datar was asked to find out what the ..(3).. envelope contained and when the panch witness Datar opened the envelope he found currency notes which were inside. The three witnesses including the Investigating Officer have stated so. The prosecution has led evidence to show that personal search of all those who were in the raiding party including the panch witness was given by examination in the light of ultraviolet lamp. It was found that there was no anthracene powder on the panch witness Datar who had handled the envelope as well as the currency notes which were kept on the Xerox machine by orig.accused No.2. It has been brought in the evidence that no anthracene powder was found on the envelope which was supposed to contain amount. The absence of anthracene powder on the fingers of panch witness Datar and the absence of anthracene powder on the envelope which was supposed to contain the amount, raises grave doubt in the mind regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. 4. Another important fact which I find necessary to discuss is that though the complainant was working as a building contractor, ..(4).. earlier he was in the employment of Pen Nagar Parishad as Overseer. It is an admitted fact that before any construction is made permission of Local Authority is required to be obtained, without which any construction made, is illegal. But then it is equally true, if an application is made for permission to construct and if permission is not granted within a stipulated time and if any shortcomings in the application are not communicated to the applicant, then permission shall be deemed to have been granted and the applicant may proceed with the work of the construction. Since the complainant Bharat was working in the employment of the Nagar Parishad at Pen as a Overseer, it necessarily implies that he was aware of these provisions and same also has been stated by him in his complaint Exh.41. A reference to the presumptive provision has been conspicuously made by Bharat Punamiya in his complaint Exh.41 only for the purposes of showing that after the application was made by him and when he requested the Chief Officer for the grant of permission, the Chief Officer was demanding an amount of Rs.5000/- and that 60 days time is given ..(5).. to Nagar Parishad by law for grant of sanction and, therefore, he was waiting. Obviously when an application was made by Bharat on 9.6.1997 and permission was not granted to him even after the expiry of said period of 60 days, then clearly it was not necessary for him to wait for any permission or to make any request to anyone for any such permission. In such case, it does not appear that the complainant would make any such request to accused No.1. After taking into account the above facts, the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondents-accused of the offences charged. 5. Looking to the evidence on record,I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)