1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2002 State of Maharashtra through Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Bureau, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. .. APPELLANT .. Versus .. Dr. Baban Rambhau Tote, aged 56 years, Medical Superintendent, P.D. M.C. , Amravati, District Amravati. .. RESPONDENT Mr. P.D. Kothari, APP for Appellant. Mr. S.G. Loney, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 16 , 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.7.2002 passed by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Special Case (A.C.B.) No. 2 of 1992 acquitting the respondent/accused for offence punishable 2 under Section 7,13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the present appeal was filed. 2. In support of the appeal Mr. Kothari, the learned APP made the following submissions: i) The respondent during anti-corruption raid was caught raid handed with the amount of Rs.25/- and that was the strong piece of evidence which the trial Court has ignored. ii) The trial Court has erred in rejecting the evidence of complainant PW1 Ramesh upon examining the conduct of the said witness, but then that was not relevant and what was relevant whether the demand and acceptance was proved or not. iii) According to the prosecution evidence the demand and acceptance both were proved and, therefore, the trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent. 3. Per contra, Mr. S.G. Loney, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence upon scrutinizing the same 3 and has not committed any error or perversity in the matter. This Court is not entitled to substitute its own view even if the same is possible in appeal against acquittal. That apart, the trial Court observed the demeanour of the complainant PW1 Ramesh and the fact that respondent/accused was a practicing doctor besides his employment as Medical Officer with the Government and the amount of Rs.25/- was accepted by him towards his fees of private hospital and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted him. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal. DISCUSSION 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and also seen evidence. I have also gone through the judgment. It is seen that PW1 Ramesh who is the complainant who has lodged a report with A.C.B. , used to visit the private clinic of the respondent/accused so also the hospital. The complainant was in the habit of remaining absent and some how getting his leave sanctioned from the Commandant of S.R.P. and thus used to approach the doctor for certificate to 4 show him unfit. The trial Court has found the defence theory probable that the respondent/doctor was practicing in his own clinic in addition to his duties as Medical Officer. It is further seen from the evidence that in this habit of remaining absent from duty, on one of the excuses complainant PW1 Ramesh was proceeded departmentally by SRP and he was found guilty therein and in that he was retired compulsory from service. The charge that he was absent for more than one year was also proved against him. It has been brought in his cross- examination that he was an accused in a criminal case for the offence of cheating and forgery in the Court of JMFC Pusad and surprisingly enough the charge in the said proceeding was that he impersonated himself as District Superintendent of Police and cheated the public at large in uniform. Thus the net result of the discussion is that the trial Court found him to be a man of loose character and appears to have foisted false case on the respondent. The trial Court marked his demeanour when he was examined before the trial Court and found that this witness/complainant was not character of worthy of belief in a 5 serious offence of the nature. With the above discussion, therefore, I find that the approach of the trial Court cannot be said to be fauly. 5. In the result, I find no substance in the appeal. The same is dismissed. (A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.) ...