bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2906 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 2906 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 2906 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant v/s Jaysing Ganpat Koli ... Respondent Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the applicant. Mr.Vijay Killedar for the respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. A. S. OKA, J. A. S. OKA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 6TH JANUARY, 2009 6TH JANUARY, 2009 6TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Heard learned A.P.P in support of the application seeking leave to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. The respondent was charged with an offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Datta Santuna Bhandare had made an application through Grampanchayat in February 2001 for getting subsidy for constructing house under the scheme for homeless persons implemented by the Government. The Zilla Parishad through the Social Welfare Department had granted an 2 amount of Rs.20,000/- as subsidy in favour of the said Datta Santuna Bhandare. According to the case of the prosecution, the respondent accused had visited the concerned village and was shown the place where the said Dattu Santuna Bhandare was supposed to build the house. The case of the prosecution is that a sum of Rs.15,000/- out of the total subsidy was released in favour of the said Datta Santuna Bhandare. He completed the construction of the house. Thereafter he made enquiry as to why balance amount of subsidy was not being released. After making enquiries with the Gram Sewak and Social Welfare Department of the Panchayat Samiti, the said Datta Santuna Bhandare was told that remaining amount of the subsidy will be released after obtaining completion certificate. 3. On 12.9.2002, the said Datta Santuna Bhandare met the accused and requested him to issue completion certificate. At that time, the respondent accused demanded an amount of Rs.1000/- for issuing the completion certificate and for giving information. On 17.9.2002, the said Datta Santuna Bhandare met the accused. The respondent accused demanded the amount. When the said Datta Santuna Bhandare expressed inability to pay the amount, the respondent accused insisted on paying the same without which the completion certificate 3 would not be issued. On the request made by the said Datta Santuna Bhandare, the respondent agreed to accept a sum of Rs.500/-. The said Datta Santuna Bhandare proceeded to lodge a complaint in the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau. A trap was accordingly laid and according to the prosecution, the trap was successful. The learned Special Judge has disbelieved the case of the prosecution as the learned Judge found several infirmities in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned special Judge proceeded to acquit the respondent accused. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken me through the impugned judgment and order and the material portion of the evidence of the said Datta Santuna Bhandare. He submitted that the factum of demand of payment of the amount has been established by the prosecution. He submitted that the raid was successful and the evidence on record establishes the factum of demand and acceptance. He submitted that the learned Trial Judge committed an error by passing an order of acquittal. 5. I have considered the submissions. I have perused the evidence of the complainant. In the examination-in-chief the complainant stated that he was 4 accompanied by one Shirole to the office of the respondent accused. He stated that when enquired about the balance amount of subsidy, the respondent accused asked him whether he had brought the amount. Prior to that the respondent accused handed over certain documents and asked the complainant to get zerox copies of the said documents. The complainant got the copies of the documents prepared and on instructions of the respondent accused he delivered the said documents to one Kulkarni. The complainant stated that the accused asked him about the amount and he gave the amount of Rs.500/-. He stated that the accused took that amount and kept it in his pocket. The learned Special Judge has recorded that the witness was taking time to answer the questions. In the cross-examination, the complainant stated that there is a very big hall in Mahsul Bhavan and at the relevant time there were about 1000 to 1500 persons present in the hall. He admitted that he met the respondent accused in the mob. He stated that there was discussion between himself and the police for a period of one hour. He admitted that the respondent accused had not asked for an amount and had not told him that he will not issue the certificate till the amount is paid. He had denied the correctness of the suggestion that he had never handed over any amount to the respondent. He proceeded to state that he had 5 kept the said amount on the table and after keeping the amount on the table, he immediately came outside. The complainant categorically admitted that he had not witnessed the accused either taking the amount or keeping it in his pocket of his shirt. 6. Considering the aforesaid admissions of the complainant, the learned Special Judge had disbelieved the prosecution case. After having considered the statements made by the complainant in the cross-examination, it is obvious that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a possible view. 7. In the circumstances, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal. Hence, no case is made out for grant of leave. 8. Application for leave is rejected. ( A.S.OKA, J. ) A.S.OKA, J. ) A.S.OKA, J. )