(1) CRI.APP. 1165.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1165 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra Through Mukund Namdeorao Hatote, Age : 47 years, Occu.: Service, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Anti Corruption of Bureau, Latur, Dist. Latur .. Applicant VERSUS Gorakh S/o Maroti Gaikwad, Age : 52 years, Occu.: Service, (Talathi), Talathi Sajja Hadga (O), R/o Samata Nagar, Mubarakhpur, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur .. Respondent ... Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the Applicant-State Mr. S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for the respondent ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 7TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This is an Application seeking leave to Appeal against judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Nilanga. The respondent was working as Village Talathi. It was alleged that he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2500/- for effecting mutation (2) CRI.APP. 1165.2010 entry in respect of agricultural land purchased by complainant Chandrakant Dhumal in name of his wife. 2. Having heard learned APP and learned Advocate, and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the respondent had some previous quarrel with Advocate Shri N.T. Dhumal. Said Advocate Shri N.T. Dhumal is related to complainant Chandrakant Dhumal. It also appears that said Advocate Shri N.T. Dhumal was present in the Court when the statement of complainant was being recorded. Thus, there is prima facie reason to believe that Advocate N.T. Dhumal was interested in the prosecution against the respondent. What appears from the record is that the sale deeds were executed on 17.1.2005 and complainant Chandrakant applied for mutation on 14.12.2005. The alleged demand of illegal gratification was made on 12.2.2008. The delay of about more than 2-1/2 years is rather inexplicable. According to the complainant, he wanted to alienate agricultural land and, therefore, the mutation entry was sought to be effected. The trial Court noticed that marriage of the daughter of (3) CRI.APP. 1165.2010 the complainant was already performed in the year 2007 and, therefore, in the month of February, 2008 such a reason for urgent mutation was not available. It is also explicit that the respondent instructed the complainant-Chandrakant Dhumal that he was required to deposit Rs.300/- for each of the measurement. The complainant was required to deposit such amount in the year 2005 itself but he had not taken steps for the purpose of complying with the necessary requirements. 3. The trial Court noticed that not only the delay in lodging of the FIR but the conduct of the complainant which disclosed some ill intention but that the pant of the respondent was not seized nor the articles found in the pocket of his pant were examined under the ultra violet lamp. It was the case of the prosecution that the tainted currency notes were put in the pocket of the pant and, therefore, such examination was necessary. The learned Special Judge also noticed that one independent witness was available as he was sitting on a bench at the tea stall between Panch Satish and (4) CRI.APP. 1165.2010 the respondent. Considering the deficiencies noticed by the trial Court the impugned judgment of acquittal came to be recorded. 4. Under the circumstances, there appears no perversity as such and leave to Appeal may not be granted only because some other view is possible. Leave refused. Application is dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp