( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 729 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Sona Magan Dhangar RESPONDENT .... Smt. S.D. Shelke, APP for the applicant/State. Mr. U.S. Malte, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 1st September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application seeking leave to appeal. 2. The respondent was chargesheeted for offence punishable under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case of the prosecution before the trial Court was that there were some altercations between complainant's his uncle, by name, Shalik, nephew, by name, Ravindra, on one hand and the S.T. bus conductor on the other. The police had visited house of complainant's uncle on 4th November, 2006. His uncle and nephew were released on bail on 6th November, 2006. In that ( 2 ) context, the respondent demanded Rs. 500/- from the complainant with a view to screen himself from the criminal case. The complainant agreed to pay the amount as demanded on 8th November, 2006. The respondent gave his mobile number. Instead of going to the Police Station on 8th November, 2006, the complainant visited office of the Anti Corruption Bureau on 7th November, 2006 and lodged a report. A trap was laid. The respondent was held raid-handed while accepting the bribe money. 3. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The acquittal of the respondent appears to have been rendered due to inconsistency found in the versions of the complainant and the witness byname Nitin Warule (PW2). The trial Court noticed that there were omissions in the police statement of PW Nitin Warule. It is worthy to be noted that the respondent examined DW1 Somnath in support of his defence. Though duty hours of DW Somnath Mahajan had been over before a couple of hours of the alleged incident, he narrated that he was wondering within the precincts of police station for those two (2) hours and saw that two (2) persons approached the ( 3 ) respondent. One of them took out money from his pocket and kept the same on the lap of the respondent. As the respondent did not accept it, he picked up those currency notes and had thrust them in the shirt pocket of the respondent. This story narrated by the defence witness is totally discrepant with the nature of defence and it was much inconsistent with the suggestions given to the complainant and the another witness. It is true that there is inconsistency between the versions of the complainant and PW Nitin. Still, however, minor discrepancies may not be magnified to such an extent that the entire story ought to be thrown out. In any case, having regard to the reasons ascribed by the learned Special Judge and having regard to the fact that the version of the complainant is corroborated by the immediate recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the respondent, I am of the opinion that afresh look at the matter is necessary. Consequently, leave to appeal is granted. The application is allowed. Mr. Malte waives service for the respondent, in the appeal. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln729-10 ( 4 )