1 appln 468 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.468 OF 2011 State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. -versus Vivek Pandurang Patil and anr .. Respondents. Mrs. P. P. Bhosale, for the applicant. Mr. Anand S. Patil, for the Respondents. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 21st September, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against acquittal of the respondents ordered by the learned Special Judge, Kolhapur, for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1))d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant has been sanctioned a loan of Rs. 50,000/- and had come to the office of respondents for collecting that cheque. It is alleged that respondents demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- before issuing that cheque. A trap was laid and a sum of Rs.1,000/- was placed by the complainant in the register kept by respondent No.2. She then prepared a cheque for Rs.50,000/-, made entry of that cheque in the register and took that register to respondent No.1. The complainant gave a signal to raiding party. Nobody's hands were found tainted. Amount of Rs.1,000/- was 2 appln 468 of 2011 collected from the register. It is the defence of the respondents that the complainant was supposed to pay 2% of the amount of loan as Government guarantee fee; which was to be paid separately. Learned APP has made available for my perusal copy of Exhibit No.37, which shows that beneficiary was supposed to pay Government Guarantee fee @ 2% on the total amount of loan, which was to be paid by either by a cheque or demand draft. Exhibit 37 is the letter of sanction which contains this condition at two places, first below the amount sanctioned and again at para No.8 which mentions that the Government guarantee fee of Rs.1,000/- to be paid by the applicant by way or cheque of demand draft. Learned APP submits that since this amount was to be paid by cheque or demand draft, there was no reason for the respondents to accept this amount by cash. Therefore, the learned Judge should not have accepted the defence of the respondents. Though a sum of Rs.1,000/- had not been so paid by the complainant by cheque or demand draft, preparation of cheque of Rs.50,000/- in the name of complainant could show that Rs.1,000/- may have been received by the respondents towards 2% government guarantee fee mentioned in the sanction letter. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Judge took a view which could not at all have been taken. It is for the Government to decide whether such loopholes which would increase corruption should be left in the schemes which 3 appln 468 of 2011 Government floats from time to time. Since defence was probabilised, Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)