1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1424 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra Applicant Versus 1 Dilip Kashinath Sonar, age: 39 years, Occ: Service, R/o Ekta Colony, Plot No.2, Agarkar Mala, Station Road, Ahmednagar. 2 Umesh Chandrakant Rekhe, age: 32 years, Occ: Electrical Contractor, R/o 4429, Sub Jail Chowk, Ahmednagar. Respondents Mr.V.H.Dighe, A.P.P. for the applicant-State. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 09th June, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1 This is an application presented by the State for grant of leave to present appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, raising challenge to the judgment and order dated 23.12.2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Special Case No. 7/2005, thereby directing acquittal of the accused. 2 2 Respondents-accused were prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for commission of offence of accepting illegal gratification. Accused no.1 is an Engineer in M.S.E.B. at Ahmednagar, whereas accused no.2 is an electric contractor. Complainant runs a shop in the name and style as “Abhijit Cushion Works”, at Sidharthanagar. It is alleged that for securing electricity connection in the tenanted premises, illegal gratification of Rs.500/- was received. The demand is alleged to have been made by accused no.1. The complainant, as such, approached the Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged complaint in that respect. Accused were apprehended while accepting bribe amount of Rs.500/-. 3 The prosecution, in order to establish guilt of the accused, has examined as many as four witnesses. After considering evidence of the prosecution and statements of accused, trial Court has found that the prosecution has not established the case and as such, directed acquittal of the accused. 4 I have perused the judgment passed by the trial Court. The appeal is devoid of substance for serious reasons. Firstly, demand is in respect of a work which was already completed and admittedly accused no.1 has no concern with the alleged work. Apart from completion of the work before extending demand, it transpires that there is absolutely no evidence in respect of alleged demand. P.W.2 pancha witness has not stated anything in respect of demand made by accused no.1. It has also been brought on record that complainant himself has admitted in his 3 cross examination that he has lodged information as per say of Investigating Officer P.W.4 Eknath Kopnar and has involved accused no.1. He has also admitted in his deposition that the Investigating Officer has informed him to involve accused no.1 Sonar and unless he is involved, the complaint will not be sustainable. Thus, the Investigating Officer Eknath Kopnar has written down the complaint and complainant has merely put his signature thereon. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court did not find favour with the prosecution version and directed acquittal of the accused. 5 The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view and the reasons recorded in support of the order of acquittal are based on proper appreciation of evidence. Merely because some other view is also possible in the facts and circumstances, cannot be a ground for causing interference in the order of acquittal recorded in the criminal case. There is no merit in the appeal. 6 Criminal Application tendered by the State seeking leave to file appeal, therefore, stands rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/criappln142409 4