1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2274 OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant. Versus Baliram Vishwanath Gopalghare ... Respondent. ... Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for the Applicant. Mr.S.M.Godsay, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 06.10.2009. PER COURT 1. This is an application seeking leave to appeal U/s 378 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The Respondent was prosecuted and tried before the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.1/2008, in the Court of Sessions Division at 2 Ambajogai. The learned Special Judge held that the alleged charge for offences U/ss 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was not proved against the Respondent. 3. In substance, the prosecution case is that that the Respondent demanded illegal gratification of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred) from complainant Ulhas Joshi on 22nd September 2007 for obtaining sanction to his monthly pay bill. Complainant Ulhas Joshi moved the office of Anti Corruption Bureau and thereafter trap was arranged. The Respondent was caught immediately after he had accepted the tainted currency notes from the complainant on 4.10.2007. The tainted currency notes were recovered from him. According to the Respondent, the amount was given by the complainant by way of repayment of hand loan and had nothing to do with the official work regarding clearance of the monthly pay bill. 4. The learned Special Judge acquitted the Respondent mainly on the ground that the 3 Secretary of the Education Institution was not competent to give sanction for the prosecution as required under the law since the Head Master could not be appointed by the Secretary nor can be removed by the Secretary. The learned Special Judge also noticed that the Respondent had sent the pay bill for clearance on 21.9.2007 and as such there was no question of demand for such amount on 22.9.2007. 5. What emerges from the impugned judgment and record is that the Respondent had not withheld monthly pay bill of the complainant. No other School Teacher had ventilated any grievance regarding any demand for clearance of the monthly pay bill. It has come on record that there were internal disputes between the group of the Secretary and that of the President of the Educational Institution. The Respondent happens to be relative of the President of the Educational Institution and was not in the good books of the Secretary. The Managing Committee had not adopted any resolution to grant sanction for the prosecution. The learned Special Judge 4 also noticed that the work regarding forwarding of the pay bill was already done by the Respondent before the alleged demand was put forth. The pay bill was sent consolidatedly in respect of the staff members and not in piecemeal manner. Considering these aspects, mere recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the Respondent would not by itself be sufficient evidence to infer the first demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by him. The reasons recorded by the learned Special Judge are sufficient to extent benefit of reasonable doubt to the Respondent. As stated earlier, the sanction accorded for the prosecution is also defective and not in consonance with the letters and spirit of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. For the reasons aforestated, leave to appeal is refused. The application and appeal stand dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp227409 5