1 Cri-A-3752-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3752 OF 2010 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant/Appellant (Orig. complainant) vs. Umesh S. Dedage .. Respondent (Orig. accused) Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP, for the applicant - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 8th March, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP. 2. The State has filed this application seeking leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Satara, whereby she acquitted accused/respondent for the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. 3. According to prosecution, the complainant Anil Pandurang Bondre was working as Senior Clerk in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Satara. He submitted medical bills of Rs.19000/- to the office of Civil Hospital, 2 Cri-A-3752-10.sxw Satara for sanction of the bills. The accused, who was working as a Junior clerk in Civil Hospital allegedly made a demand of Rs.1900/-, being the 10% of the bill amount, for getting the work done. The trap was laid and the complainant, on demand, allegedly put the tainted notes of Rs.1900/- in a tray on the table of the accused. The accused touched the same and, at the same time, he was caught by the raiding party of Anti Corruption Bureau. Anthracene powder was found on his fingers. 4. The learned Special Judge found that both the panch witnesses were subordinates of the complainant himself working in the same office of Dy.S.P. Thus, there was no independent panch witness of demand and acceptance of the bribe. A peon working in the Civil Hospital was present, but he was not examined by the prosecution. He was examined as a defence witness and he deposed that the accused had not made any demand of money and without demand the complainant had put the amount in the tray, but as soon as the accused touched the notes, he was caught. The learned Special Judge also found that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind nor he had bothered to see whether all the relevant documents were placed before him while putting signature on the sanction order. It is settled position of law that the High Court will not interfere in the order of acquittal unless it is per-se wrong, illegal or perverse, merely because 3 Cri-A-3752-10.sxw on re-appreciation of evidence different view is also possible. 5. Taking into consideration the material on record and the reasons given by the trial Court, I do not find that the said order is per-se wrong, illegal or perverse. Therefore, the application seeking leave to prefer appeal stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)