2211appa508.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 508 OF 2011 (The State of Maharashtra Vs. Krushna Fakirchand Gaigole) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M. J. Khan, A.P.P. for the State. Shri R. V. Gaikwad, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2011. 1. The respondent, who was serving as Meter Reader with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, had visited the house of the complainant Ramesh Ambulkar on 12/6/1999 for taking meter reading. After inspecting the meter, he informed the complainant that meter was tampered with and the latter had committed theft of electricity and accordingly he prepared the documents and took signature of the complainant. To hush up the matter, the respondent demanded Rs.7,500/- from the complainant and lastly they agreed for Rs.5,000/-. On 14/6/1999 the respondent/ accused visited the house of the complainant and asked him to pay at least Rs.1,000/- so that documents which he had prepared showing theft of electricity would be destroyed. The complainant promised that he would keep the money 2211appa508.11.odt 2/2 ready on the next day. The complainant approached the office of anti corruption on 15/6/1999 and the trap was laid. The respondent-accused was caught red handed while taking bribe. Perusal of the judgment impugned shows that the learned Sessions Judge did not believe the version of the complainant on the ground that it is not corroborated by other witnesses on the fact of demand and acceptance of the bribe. It is settled law that to prove any fact in issue, plurality of evidence is not necessary. Thus, the panchas not supporting the prosecution cannot be the sole ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. Therefore, I am of the view that there are arguable points involved and this is a fit case to grant leave to file an appeal. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. Admit. Action under Section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code. JUDGE wwl