1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1794/2010 The State of Maharashtra Applicant. V E R S U S Satish s/o Vaijinathrao Kshirsagar. Respondent. Mrs. D.R. Khekale, Learned APP for applicant State. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard Mrs. Khekale learned APP for the applicant. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-state seeking leave to file appeal against judgment and order of acquittal rendered by learned Special Judge (P. C.Act ) Aurangabad in Special Case No.24/2006 on 28.01.2010 acquitting the respondent from the charges leveled against him under section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3- Mrs. Khekale learned APP took me through the impugned judgment. The prosecution has examined three witnesses to substantiate the aforesaid charges leveled against the respondents such as P.W.1 Mr. 2 Samadhan Suryabhan Pathare-complainant, P.W.2 Mr. Prakash Purnapatre panch and P.W.3 Mr. Bramhadeo Vasudeo Gawade, investigating Officer. Admittedly, respondent (original accused) was working as Talathi at Karanjgaon Tq. Vaijapur District Aurangabad and allegations against him are that he demanded gratification amount of Rs.1000/- from the complainant to effect mutation entry of the name of the complainant into record of rights of land gat No.97 and allegedly on negotiations said amount of gratification was fixed at Rs.800/-. However, after assessing the evidence learned trial judge arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to show that there was any work of the complainant with the accused as well as prosecution failed to prove that accused made any demand of bribe money to the complainant for effecting mutation entry and further prosecution failed to prove that accused accepted bribe money voluntarily. Learned trial judge also considered the aspect of presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and arrived to the conclusion that in the absence of proof of demand such presumption cannot be considered. It is settled principle that demand of gratification and payment thereof has to be established by the prosecution with corroboration. However apparently such is not the position in the instant case. 4- Besides that, view adopted by the learned trial judge after scrutinizing the evidence, which is a probable view and same does not appear to be perverse and therefore no interference therein is warranted. 3 5- In the circumstance present application is sans merit and therefore same stands dismissed and leave to file appeal stands refused. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) ..... aaa/1749.10