1 Appln 682-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.682 OF 2011 Union of India .Applicant V/s. Ravindra Vinayak Waikar & anr. .Respondents Mr.D.N.Salvi, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.Sachin Pawar, Advocate, for Respondent No.1 Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 20TH JULY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to file an Appeal against acquittal of respondent No.1 by the learned Special Judge, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent, a Sanitory Inspector with the Khadki Cantonment Board, is alleged to have 2 Appln 682-2011 taken a bribe of Rs.50,000/- for not reporting the complainant's encroachment to the board. The Complainant reported the matter to the CBI and arranged a raid. Before arranging the raid, the investigating officer wanted to ascertain the demand and therefore, after attaching a device to the phone to record telephonic conversation, the Complainant was made to talk to the accused and conversation was recorded. On 30 th June, 2004 the accused is alleged to have asked the Complainant to come near Prabhat Theatre. The raiding party, however, seems to have gathered near Alka Talkies, Tilak road. The accused is alleged to have asked Complainant to mount on the pillion seat of the motor cycle and took the Complainant to the hotel by name Gujarathi hotel on Tilak road itself. Since the raiding party was not there, the Complainant claims to have gone out on the pretext of answering call of nature and made a phone call to the raiding officer. Inside the hotel, according to the 3 Appln 682-2011 Complainant, the accused did not actually make any demand orally but made a gesture. The Complainant took out a sum of Rs.40,000/- and asked the accused to count it but the accused asked the Complainant to put the notes in a carry bag which the waiter was asked to bring. Without touching the notes, accused asked the Complainant to put the notes in carry bag and then put his carry bag inside his shirt. The Complainant then gave pre-determined signal and accused was caught. Since the accused had not at all touched the notes, there is no question of his hands or any part of the body being tainted. There was also no conversation about the demand in the hotel. Micro cassettes which had been recorded were retained by the officer from the date of raid i. e. 30 th June, 2004 till 2 nd March, 2005 when they were received in the office of PW-7, who is the forensic expert. There is nothing to show that the tapes had been kept in a sealed condition or were received by the expert in a 4 Appln 682-2011 sealed condition. 3. The learned Judge held first that demand was not proved, since the tape recording was not reliable. The learned Judge seems to have curiously observed in para 22 of his Judgment that since recorded cassette was not played in Court, there was no occasion for the Court to listen to the conversation. Nobody had prevented the learned Judge from listening to the tape recorded conversation had he so desired. This observation is really unfortunate. However, the fact that the cassettes were not shown to have been securedly kept from the date they were first played in the hotel till they were sent to the expert cannot be lost sight of. However, presuming that respondent did demand money and also eventually made the Complainant part with it, it is clear that the respondent was alerted to the possibility of being trapped and took the Complainant on pillion seat of 5 Appln 682-2011 Scooter and then took care of not touching money and asking the waiter to bring carry bag in which money was put. If the respondent was so alert, it is doubtful whether he would so easily allow himself for trapped. It is also worthy to note that he did not make demand orally in the hotel. In view of this, it cannot be said that view taken by the learned Judge is perverse or improbable calling for interference by this Court. Except the observations of the learned Judge about not being able to listen to the cassettes, there is nothing wrong in the Judgment of the learned trial Judge. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. 4. Criminal Application stands disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)