1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) No. 169/2011 ( The State of Maharashtra through Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB Chandrapur .vs. Narayan Shankar Bharsakade and another ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. D.P. Thakre, APP for Applicant. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2011 Heard. By the present application under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., the prosecution has sought leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by learned Special Judge, Warora in Special Case No. 6/2004 acquitting respondent no.1 from commission of offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and respondent no.2 from commission of offence punishable under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. In short it is the case of the prosecution that respondent no.1 at the relevant time was working as Assistant Police Sub Inspector and respondent no.2 as Constable at Warora Police Station. It is further 2 prosecution case that respondent no.1 on 27.9.2003 had demanded an amount of Rs.2000/- from the complainant for not taking any action against his son by himself and respondent no.2 and after repetition of such demand, such an amount was accepted by respondent no.2 from the complainant for himself and for respondent no.1. Having regard to the submission of the learned APP that the trial Court manifestly erred in not accepting the prosecution case and recording finding of the prosecution having failed to prove the relevant matters, even though the evidence surfaced at trial itself reveals that it was the defence of respondent no.2 that amount of Rs.2000/- was forcibly thrusted by the complainant in his pocket and thus the prosecution having proved the acceptance of an amount by respondent no.2 and consequent failure of the trial court to raise the statutory presumption as warranted by section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, having erroneously recorded the order of acquittal in favour of the respondent and such position as urged by the learned APP being prima facie seen from the reasoning recorded in paragraphs nos. 17 and 19 of the judgment, the matter needs consideration as no reasons are seen for not raising such presumption or any discussion about rebuttal of same. In view of the same, the prosecution has made out a case for grant of leave as prayed for. Hence leave granted. Admit. Action under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. to follow. Inform the trial Court to release the respondents on bail upon each of them executing a P.R. 3 bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount and subject to the conditions of respondents staying at the address mentioned in the appeal memo, not leaving the jurisdiction of this Court without permission of the Court, not indulging in any activity of threatening, intimidating or harassing the witnesses who have deposed against them at the trial, not committing any offence while being on bail granted vide this order and appearing before this Court at the time of final hearing. JUDGE halwai