1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2125 of 2009 In Criminal Application No. 1889 of 2009 State of Maharashtra v. Vithal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr A. Parihar, APP for applicant-State Mr Mahesh Singh, Adv for respondent. Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 7th September 2009 1. Cri. Application 2125 of 09 : Heard learned APP for applicant- State. Application is not opposed by learned counsel for respondent. Delay condoned. Application disposed of accordingly. 2. Cri. Application No. 1889 of 09 : Not on board. Taken up by consent of parties. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Applicant- State is seeking leave to appeal against judgment and order dated 8th October 2008 passed by the Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Criminal Case No. 7 of 2003 whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Learned Special Judge has observed that demand and acceptance has not been proved and the prosecution has failed to discharge the said burden in order to draw presumption under Section 20 of the Act 2 in favour of the prosecution. Moreover, it is established on record that the complainant was harbouring animosity against accused. Learned counsel in its detailed judgment has come to a conclusion that there is no cogent, sufficient and reliable evidence against accused to prove that there was demand and acceptance of bribe. After going through judgment impugned and hearing learned Addl. Public Prosecutor at length, I find no reason to grant leave to appeal. Application is, therefore, rejected and consequently, appeal is dismissed. Judge. hsj