..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2529 of 2006 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Dilip Hagduji Vasnik and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.A.R.Patil, APP, for the Applicant-State. Mr.N.N.Gavankar, Adv. i/b. Mr.Arfan Sait, Adv. for the Respondents. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : MARCH 28, 2008. DATED : MARCH 28, 2008. DATED : MARCH 28, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State of Maharashtra and the learned Advocate for the Respondents-orig.accused Nos.1 & 2. 2. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has challenged the judgment and order dated 23.1.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (POC), Thane in Special Case No.20 of 2003. By the said judgment and order the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent No.1-Orig.accused No.1 of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) ..(2).. read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and acquitted respondent No.2-orig.accused No.2 of the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. I have perused the judgment and order dated 23.1.2006 as well as the evidence in the present case. After going through the same, it is seen that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 4. The case of the complainant is that his brother was in Thane Central Jail as prisoner and respondent No.1 was the jail officer. When the complainant went to meet his brother in jail, he was not allowed to meet his brother. Thereafter the case of the complainant is that respondent No.1 demanded some amount from him which he gave to respondent No.2. The learned Special Judge has observed that no demand was made till the work was over. No time and date was fixed for giving money. The case is mainly based on the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness. As far as panch witness is concerned, he has stated that ..(3).. he had never acted as a panch witness. However, from the record it is seen that he has acted as a panch in several cases also and he is a stock panch of the police and thus amenable to the police. The very fact that the panch witness tried to conceal the fact that he had acted as a panch witness earlier shows that his evidence cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, the defence of respondent No.2 is that the complainant gave him a bed sheet for handing over to the brother of the complainant who was in jail and while the accused was inspecting the bed-sheet at that time the complainant thrust something in the pant pocket of the accused and started leaving. When the accused sensed it and put hand inside the pocket and found that it was money, he immediately went after the complainant to return the money. The duty of the accused was inside the room, however according to the evidence of the witnesses the accused was caught out side the room. There was no reason for the accused person to come outside the room. The very fact that the witnesses have stated that the accused was caught outside the room infact substantiates the defence of the accused person. Besides this, it is seen ..(4).. that the complainant had a grudge against the accused persons as he was not allowed to meet his brother who was in jail. As stated earlier, the case is dependent only on the evidence of the complainant and the panch witness. Looking to the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge did not find it safe to rely on the testimony of both these witnesses and hence he has acquitted the respondents. 5. On perusal of the entire evidence, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 6. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then mere circumstance that the lower Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 SC 66 AIR 1971 SC 66 AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial ..(5).. Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in Appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)