- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2029/2010 The State of Maharashtra. ...Applicant.. Versus Vilas Ramkrishna Deshmukh. ...Respondent... ..... Shri S.D. Kaldate , A.P.P. for applicant. Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent. ..... CORAM: SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE: 16.07.2010 PER COURT: 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. - 2 - 2] This is an application preferred by the applicant - State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.3.2009 rendered by learned Special Judge, Ambajogai, in Special Case No.6/2004 acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offences punishable u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3] I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.3.2009 and record & proceedings with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. 4] In short, the prosecution case is that the complainant Sevakram Shankar Shinde lodged a complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau, Beed, against the respondent herein, who was serving as Maintenance Surveyor in Taluka Inspector Land Record office, Ambajogai, at the relevant time. According to the complainant, the land bearing 2 Acres 35 Gunthas in Survey No.459 situated at Ambajogai is in the name of his father and the adjacent land bearing Survey Nos. 459 and 458 is owned by one Anita Sunil Ingle r/o Parali Vaijanath. Smt.Anita Ingle had filed application for measurement of her land prior to two and half to three months of filing of the complaint in the office of T.I.L.R., Ambajogai. Accordingly, Surveyor issued notice to Smt.Anita Ingle to remain present on the field on 16.4.2004 for measurement. It is also the contention of the complainant that on 16.4.2004, land of Smt.Anita Ingle was measured by Surveyor. Again on - 3 - 22.4.2004, Smt.Anita Ingle filed application for measurement and she was directed to remain present on the land on 27.5.2004. The second notice was received by father of the complainant and pursuant to the said notice, the complainant remained present. However, Mr.Deshmukh, Surveyor i.e. the accused did not come for measurement. The complainant went to his office and it is alleged that the accused demanded Rs.5,000/- to close the file. It is also alleged that the said amount was negotiated and the accused agreed to settle the matter at Rs.2100/-, out of which Rs.500/- were allegedly paid by the complainant to him and balance of Rs.1600/- were to be paid to him, which was allegedly paid by the complainant to the accused on the date of the trap i.e. on 2.6.2004. 5] To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined four witnesses i.e. P.W.1 Sevekram Shinde, P.W.2 Kashinath Dhurandhare, P.W.3 Narayan Dharma Sable, Deputy Director, and P.W.4 Arvind Shinde, investigating officer. After conducting the trial and appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Judge did not find the accused guilty and acquitted him from the charges levelled against him by judgment and order dated 18.3.2009. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of acquittal, the applicant – State has preferred the present application seeking leave to file appeal against the same. 6] It is seen from the impugned judgment that the learned trial Judge has observed that it is clear that neither on 16.4.2004 nor on 27.5.2004, land of - 4 - Smt.Anita Ingle was at all measured by the accused. More over, the complainant himself admitted that on 16.4.2004, in his presence, the land of Smt.Anita Ingle was not measured. Hence, the learned trial Judge observed that there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that there was no reason for the accused to demand any amount as bribe from the complainant and as at no point of time during the period from 16.4.2004 till 27.5.2004, land of Smt.Anita Ingle was measured and as such question of encroachment either in the land of Smt.Anita Ingle or in the land of the complainant does not arise. 7] As regards the alleged payment of bribe by the complainant to the accused in the hotel near the office of T.I.L.R., it is observed that all the witnesses have deposed that at the instance of the accused, they went in hotel which is near the office of T.I.L.R., Ambajogai, but name of hotel is not at all given by the accused. Considering the evidence of complainant and panch, the learned trial Judge observed that the story of the accused that he never demanded any amount in hotel seems to be more probable. It is also observed by the learned trial Judge that it is highly improbable that the accused would have accepted the amount of bribe in presence of any unknown person i.e. P.W. 2 panch Kashinath. Consequently, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that in the hotel the accused demanded amount of Rs.1600/- to the complainant and thereafter accepted that amount. - 5 - 8] As regards the sanction, considering the evidence of P.W.3 Narayan Sable, Deputy Director, the learned trial Judge observed that the sanction (Exh.43) is without application of mind and without going through the evidence available on record as P.W.3 has given very admissions in his deposition in that respect. More over, as regards the investigation, the learned trial Judge observed that admittedly, P.W.4 Arvind Shinde holding the post of Police Inspector in Anti Corruption Bureau, Beed, at the relevant time, the prosecution has nowhere made out any case that P.W.4 was authorised by the competent authority to investigate the matter and, therefore, concluded that since the investigating officer P.W.4 Arvind Shinde has no authority to investigate, the trial vitiates. 9] After scrutinising and appreciating the evidence, the view adopted by the learned trial Judge is a possible view to be adopted and the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge therefor, is sound and can not be faulted with and the same also does not appear to be perverse. Therefore, the present application deserves to be rejected. 10] In the result, the present application, being sans merits, stands dismissed and leave to file appeal stands refused. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) ndk/cr1671011