1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3047 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Dr.Abdul Waheb Haji Dawood Mirza .. Respondent. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for State Mr.R.A.Shaikh for respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd January 2010. P.C.: 1] This is an application for leave to file appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by the Special Judge, Gr.Mumbai dated 28th February 2009 in Special Case No.55 of 2003. 2] The only contention raised before me in support of this application is that this is a case where bribe was offered to public servant by first respondent accused. The bribe was offered in a meeting which has been arranged in the office of the complainant. The prior events have been set out and, thereafter, it was arranged that the complainant would remain in the office. The pancha-witness would be sitting in his cabin. The complainant, as soon as the first respondent enters the cabin discusses the whole affair and offers him money, will ring the bell thrice and, thereafter the other persons waiting outside would enter the cabin. Thus, 2 it is alleged that the complainant had decided to trap the first respondent who had offered him a bribe for not applying for judicial custody of his brother. The brother was involved in a criminal case which is allegedly investigated by the respondent No.1 Reliance is placed upon the version of the panch-witness who was stated to be present in the cabin of the complainant. It is contended by the APP that his deposition has been erroneously disbelieved. It is stated that there is no difference between the narration of the events by the complainant and the panch-witness. If there is no discrepancy nor is there any contradiction, then, disbelieving panch witness and acquitting the accused is an error which would enable this Court to grant leave to file appeal against the acquittal. 3] I am unable to accept this contention. I have with the assistance of the learned APP perused the application and the annexures thereto including the judgement of the trial court. This is a case where a public servant complained about the accused offering him bribe for not doing an act which he was legally bound to perform. In other words, this was offering an amount or gratification which was not reward or a legal sum but an amount to be paid for abstaining to perform legal duty. Therefore, agitated by this, he lodged a complaint and the trap was laid. 4] Reading the judgement and more particularly paragraphs where the learned Judge deals with the deposition of the Panchwitness leave me in no manner of doubt that the appreciation of evidence cannot be held to be faulty. This is a case where in the cross examination, the panch-witness has changed his version. He admitted in para 9 of his cross examination 3 that the accused did not tell the complainant to stop investigation. Further, the panch-witness does not know the prior events and incidents including conversation of 14th October 2002. The complainant is not certain whether the notes were kept in three or four bundles. The relevant part of the judgement and more particularly paras 28 and 29 thereof would go to show that the learned Judge has appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Judge is improbable or cannot be arrived at in the light of the facts and circumstances placed before him. 5] Once the view taken is based on record and evidence in its totality, then, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Application is accordingly dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)