[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.5557 OF 2005 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Balasaheb Rajaram Shinde and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Y.P.Yagnik APP for State Mr.Ajay A.Joshi for Respondent No.1 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the Respondents-accused. 2. By judgment and order dated 30.11.2004 passed in Special Case No.1 of 1001, the learned Special Judge, Sindhudurg-Oros has acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the State. I have perused the evidence which has been produced [-2-] by him as well as the impugned judgment and order. 4. It is the prosecution case that the raiding party was present at the time of the incident, yet, no witness has stated about the passing of money from the hands of the complainant to the accused persons. Moreover, three of the witnesses i.e. Witness Nos.1, 2 and 4 have not stated about the finding of anthracene powder on the hands of the accused. Only P.W.3 speaks about finding of anthracene powder on the hands of the accused. As far as this aspect is concerned, I find that his evidence cannot be safely relied upon. Besides this, it is seen that there are discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses on material points. The case of the complainant is that the accused threatened to cancel his licence if the bribe was not paid, hence, the complainant agreed to pay the bribe. However, the complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that the accused had no authority to cancel his licence. Thus, it is seen that there was no motive for the alleged demand of bribe by the accused. The learned Special Judge has considered all these aspects and has acquitted the respondents-accused. Looking to [-3-] the evidence on record, I find that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 5. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court could have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 AIR 1971 AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1. 1. 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 6. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]