1 cri appln 2283.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2283 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus 1. Sanjay Jyotiram Ghadge and another .. Respondents Shri V. D. Rakh, A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. Shri R. P. Adgaonkar, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for respondents. Since the facts are elaborately mentioned in the impugned judgment, same are not repeated herein below. 2. The learned A.P.P. submitted that, there was initial demand in the month of June 2007. Accused No. 1 who was working as talathi demanded Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant for mentioning 1 acre sugar cane crop in the panchanama. The 2 cri appln 2283.10 demand was repeated by the accused No. 1. After 4/5 days the complainant paid Rs. 1,000/- and thereafter the complainant received the grant and thereafter accused No. 1 again demanded him remaining Rs. 1,000/-. Therefore, the complainant went to the office of A.C.B., Latur and narrated about the demand of accused. Thereafter trap was arranged on 03.11.2007. The accused No. 2 accepted the amount for accused No. 1. The learned A.P.P. submitted that, there is evidence available for demand, acceptance on 03.11.2007. Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in acquitting the respondents. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. would submit that this application seeking leave to appeal may be allowed. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention to the reasons recorded by the Trial Court and submitted that, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case of demand, acceptance. On the contrary the sanctioning authority and also the P.W. 1 have admitted that the record of the accused No. 1 prior to the incident is unblemished and clean. The learned counsel submitted that possible defence was taken by the respondent and had been accepted by the Trial Court. The possible view has been taken by the Trial Court. 3 cri appln 2283.10 Therefore, there is no ground for interference in the well written judgment and order of the Trial Court and, therefore, the application may be rejected. 3. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for respective parties. Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that there is no evidence corroborating the version of the complainant that there was initial demand of Rs. 2,000/- by the accused No. 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, the prosecution has to lay the foundation about the demand and then only rebuttal of presumption U/Sec. 20 of the said Act would arise. In the instant case the prosecution has not brought anything on record except the bare words of the complainant that there was demand of Rs. 2,000/- by the accused No. 1 from the complainant. 4. That apart, the very prosecution case is that, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- was demanded by the accused No. 1 to prepare a panchanama mentioning therein 1 Acre sugar cane crop in the name of complainant. Even according to the prosecution said act was already performed and pursuant to that the complainant received the grant. The prosecution case is that, thereafter as 4 cri appln 2283.10 agreed Rs. 1,000/- was demanded by the accused No. 1. The accused No. 2 accepted the amount for accused No. 1. It is admitted position that accused No. 2 is not a Government servant. All in all the evidence brought by the prosecution does not inspires confidence and, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. 5. Upon perusal of impugned judgment in para 20, the Trial Court has recorded the evidence of P.W. 1 Tahsildar, in which the Tahsildar has stated in his cross examination that during his tenure at Chakur the service record of the accused was clean during August, September 2008. The sanctioning authority i. e. Sub Divisional Officer in his cross examination admitted that, before trap confidential reports of the accused No. 1 were outstanding and during the period of trap also there was outstanding C. R. of accused No.1. P.W. 1 admitted in his cross examination that, Sarpanch of Janwal has given one application having the signatures of about 150 people alleging that the accused No. 1 is falsely implicated. Even P.W. 5/S.D.O. has also admitted that after the trap 100 to 150 villagers have given application saying that accused No. 1 is good person. Even P.W. 7 has also admitted that he had received one application from S. 5 cri appln 2283.10 P. Anti Corruption Bureau, Nanded on 17.11.2007 mentioning that he has received some application that accused No. 1 is innocent and, therefore, he was asked to investigate in that regard and submit the report. 6. The defence which was taken by the respondent was that, he was member of Tantamukti Samiti and he tried to have the election of the Gram Panchayat unopposed. The complainant did not like the same. He did file the nomination. In short due to the active role played by the accused No. 1 as a member of Tantamukti Samiti, the complainant has filed false complaint. Said defence has been accepted by the Trial Court. In my opinion, possible view has been taken by the Trial Court. Even if another view is possible on the basis of evidence collected by the prosecution, it has no ground to interfere in the judgment and order of the acquittal. Therefore, the application is devoid of any merit, same stands rejected. Consequently, leave to file appeal stands refused. The original record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court. The application stands disposed of. [ S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Feb. 11