1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3199 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. V/s Sunil Balwant Gaware. ..Respondents. Ms. S.V.Gajare, APP for applicant. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J DATE : FEBRUARY 11. 2010. P.C.: 1. By way of present application, Applicant challenges the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gr.Bombay, thereby acquitting the accused for offence under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant had filed complaint to the effect that after death of her husband, she had gone to the office of ‘M’ ward of Corporation for getting death certificate. It is alleged in the complaint that though the Complainant had gone on 2-3 occasions, the accused did not do the work and demanded the amount of Rs.400/- for 2 sending the papers to higher officials. It is further case that after negotiations, said amount was reduced to Rs. 200/-. On the complaint of the Complainant, trap was laid and the accused was caught red handed accepting the amount of Rs.200/-. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. At the conclusion of the trial, upon appreciation of evidence i.e. led before the Trial Court, the Trial Court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved, present application is filed. 3. Mrs. Gajare, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the Accused. It is submitted that when the trap was duly proved, presumption was in favour of the prosecution and accordingly, learned Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused. 4. On perusal of the evidence of the complainant herself, the learned Trial Court found that the complainant had admitted that when the amount was demanded by the Accused, the file was already forwarded by the Accused to the higher officer. The learned Trial Court therefore, found that when the alleged demand was made, there remained nothing to be done at the end of the accused. Upon perusal of the evidence of the Complainant, the learned Trial Court has also found that the Complainant was aware of the fact of sending 3 papers by accused to the higher officer. Insofar as the actual trap was concerned, it was found that the panch witnesses have turned hostile and the trap was also not duly proved. 5. Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Trial Court is either perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court only on the ground that the view taken by the learned Trial Court does not appear to be a probable view. Learned Trial Court upon appreciating evidence before it, had rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted the accused. No perversity or impossibility is noticed so as to warrant interference. Hence dismissed. (B.R.GAVAI,J)