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. 3808 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3808 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3808 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant versus Dattatray Dhondiram Mali & ors....... Respondent. Shri A.S.Shitole APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 17TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 17TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 17TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. This is an appeal against acquittal, taking an exception to the judgment rendered in Special Case No.1/2004 (Old No.5 of 2001). The respondent no.1 was working as a Sub-Registrar at the relevant point of time and the respondent no.2 happened to be his assistant whereas respondent no.3 is a private stamp vendor. It is the case of the complainant that the respondent no.1 demanded bribe of a sum of Rs. 500/-. The evidence of the complainant has been carefully scrutinised by the court below and, having found that the said witness is not trust worthy and having regard to the material contradictions in the evidence of the complainant and P.w.4 Riyaj, has acquitted the respondents. It will not be out of place to state that the present complainant has filed complaints against many public servants and three of such complaints were entertained by Anti Corruption Bureau. In a span of about four years, three public servants have been prosecuted on the complaints made by the complainant. Cautiously noting the evidence of the complainant and the other main witness Riyaj, the trial court found the evidence to be not trust worthy. 2. Perused the judgment impugned. The same goes to take a very possible view of the matter. It does not require any interference by this court. Hence application for leave to appeal is rejected. ...