1 cri appln 1128.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1128 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Vijay Pandurang Jogi .. Respondent Shri S. G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. Shri K. C. Sant, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 18TH JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT : . Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited my attention to the contents of complaint and also evidence of the other witnesses. Relying on the evidence, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that application seeking leave to appeal may be allowed. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the reported judgment in the case of State of 2 cri appln 1128.10 Maharashtra vs. Nanasaheb Bhikaji Tambe and others reported in 1992 Mh.L.J. Page 1530 and more particularly para 5 of the said judgment and submitted that, even at the time of hearing case against the accused, the applicant/State has to show as to whether the case is worthy to be filed and whether there is reliable evidence to support the prosecution case. 3. Learned counsel invited my attention to para 5 in its entirety and submitted that, A.P.P. has not demonstrated before this Court that, how the findings of the Court below are perverse. Learned counsel further submitted that, the reasonable and possible view has been taken by the Trial Court. There is no ground to entertain the appeal against the respondent. The counsel further submitted that, even the Court has recorded that authority to sanction is Director, Technical Transmission and Distribution. The counsel relying upon the reasons would submit that the application is devoid of merit and same may be rejected. 4. Upon hearing learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the respondent and upon perusal of contents of complaint and other evidence prima facie appears that, there is evidence of complainant corroborated by evidence of other witnesses on the 3 cri appln 1128.10 point of demand and also on the point of acceptance of the amount. It is not in dispute that, the amount was lying on the table and same was recovered in the trap from the office of the respondent. In my opinion, at this stage, it suffice to say that the Court below has not considered the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act when prosecution has discharged its burden of acceptance of amount by placing on record the evidence of complainant and other prosecution witnesses, then it was for the respondent to discharge burden upon him as per provision of Sec. 20 of the said Act. However, the trial Court has not adverted to said provision. 5. In the light of above, I am of the opinion that this application deserves to be allowed. Hence the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “C” and “E”. The Registry to take follow up action, and register the appeal. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 11