1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4067 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4068 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra through Anti Corruption Bureau Latur Appellant V/s 1) Shivaji S/o Ramchandra Shinde Age:48 Yrs. Occu: Service as Junior Engineer, MSEB Urban Division No.8, Latur. 2) Prabhakar S/o Rangnathrao Awade Age:55 Yrs.Occu: Service, Lineman, MSEB Urban Division No.8, Latur. Respondents -------------------------------------------------------- Mr.R.D.Reddy A.P.P. For the State. Mr.P.R.Tandale For Respondent No.1. ------------------------------------------------------- [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 24th July, 2009] PER COURT : 2 1. Heard. 2. The respondents were tried before the Learned Special Judge, Latur in Special Case No.1 of 2005 for alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.600/-. The respondent no.1 is Junior Engineer and respondent no.2 is lineman of the M.S.E.B. Division No.8 Latur. The complainant, namely Subhash Sasane applied for domestic electricity connection. It was alleged that the accused no.2 informed the complainant that amount of Rs.600/- was required to be deposited towards the electricity connection charges in pursuance to the demand notice and Rs.600/- for purchases of material. He suspected that amount of Rs. 600/- was being demanded as illegal gratification . He lodged the report with the Anti Corruption Bureau . A trap was arranged. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of respondent no.2. It was stated that the respondent no.2(lineman) accepted the amount under the instruction of Respondent No.1( Junior Engineer). 3 3. The Learned A.P.P. Smt.Reddy would submit that though the complainant turned hostile, yet the conduct of the respondents is material. It is argued that the delay in depositing the amount in the office is significant. 4. What emerges from the record is that the complainant was under the impression that amount of Rs. 600/- was demanded as illegal gratification. He admitted that it was needed for purchasing the articles required for installation of the electricity connection. It appears prima facie that there was misunderstanding about the said demand. The complainant and the panch did not say anything about the demand of illegal gratification by the respondent. The amount of Rs.1600/- actually was required for installation charges as per demand note. It was defence of the accused no.2 that remaining amount was given to him by the complainant so as to purchase the required material from the local market as the material was not available in the office of the M.S.E.B. The Learned Special Judge found such explanation satisfactory. Accordingly, in view of 4 hostility of the complainant, the prosecution failed to prove demand of illegal gratification by the respondents. Considering these aspects, the impugned Judgment of acquittal cannot be faulted with. The delay is explained. I find the explaination acceptable. Hence, the delay condonation application is allowed. Leave to appeal is refused. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE DSP/cri.apl.4067.08