1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3833 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State ..Applicant. v/s. 1 Kiran K. Pagare 2 Smt. Jayashri K. Pagare ..Respondents. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP for the Applicant/State. Mr. P.G.Karande i/by Akshay Gosavi and Nilesh Masurkar, advs. for the respondents. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 22nd December, 2011 PC : 1 Heard. Perused the impugned judgment and other material. 2 The prosecution seeks leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.58 of 2005 whereby the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under sections 13(1)(e) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3 To state in brief, the accused no.1 was serving as police inspector with Crime Branch, CID, Mumbai. The accused no.2 is wife of the accused no.1. On the application made by the retired PSI Bapu Dada 2 Shinde, the Anti Corruption Bureau initiated open enquiry and finally, the F.I.R. was lodged by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mr. Bhure and the Crime No.15/2001 was registered against the respondents/accused. After open enquiry , it was found that while total income of the accused persons from the known sources was Rs.29,17,942.05 paise, the total expenditure during the checked period was Rs.16,75,200/-. Assets with the accused no.1 were found to be worth Rs.24,43,759.29 paise. It was alleged that the assets were disproportionate to the extent of Rs.12,04,017.35 paise. Thus, his assets were 41.26% more than his known sources of income. Accused nos.1 and 2 gave details of their income from different sources. From the evidence on record and the plea taken by the prosecution, it appears that there was not much dispute about the sources of income of the accused nos. 1 and 2. The only dispute was about the assessment of income from those sources. In view of the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, the learned Special Judge after minutely considering the each source of income, the amount of income according to the prosecution and the amount of income claimed by the accused persons, came to conclusion that total income was infact, Rs.38,84,516.14 while the expenditure was around Rs.11,00,000/-. Thus, there was savings of Rs. 27,84,516.14 paise. Valuations of assets in possession of the accused was Rs.25,35,593.62 which was slightly less than total savings. It appears that 3 the dispute was about the assessment of income-tax from different sources, particularly, the agricultural land, knitting work done by the accused no.2, transport business of the accused no.2, from the goat farm, gifts, etc. 4 Taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties and the appreciation of the evidence made by the trial Court and the reasons given for the same, it can not be said that the view taken by the trial Court was not reasonably possible. It is settled position of law that if two views are reasonably possible, the appellate Court will not interfere in the findings of the trial Court in the case of acquittal. It is also settled that merely because the appellate Court has a different view, it shall not interfere in the findings of the acquittal of the trial Court unless the findings of the trial Court are against the record , perverse or the view taken by the trial Court is not at all possible. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position, in my opinion, the appeal against the acquittal would be a futile exercise. Therefore, I find no justification to grant leave to prefer appeal. 5 The learned trial Court also found that the sanction for the prosecution accorded by the Police Commissioner, Thane is bad in law. I do not find myself in agreement with the view taken by the trial Court on that point, particularly because in view of section 12A and section 25(1) and 25(2)(a) of the Bombay Police Act, the Police Commissioner can appoint an 4 officer of the rank of police inspector and can also impose punishments including removal from service or dismissal. Anyhow, in view of the facts of the case, I am not inclined to grant leave to prefer appeal against the acquittal. 6 Therefore, application seeking leave to prefer appeal against the acquittal stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)