IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.789 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra )..Applicant Versus Annasaheb Jayappa Langote & Anr. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Rajesh More APP for the applicant/State. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 20.08.2008. PC 1. This is an application by the State for leave to appeal. The accused have been acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 & 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I find that the same is based on cogent and acceptable reasons. It is an admitted position that accused no.1 who is said to have made demand, never accepted the tainted money. The prosecution case was that it was accepted by accused no.2 on behalf of accused no.1. It has also been held that for good reasons, sanction order was passed without application of mind as the designation of accused no.2 is incorrect and section 12 has been wrongly relied upon against both the : 2 : accused. The Complainant however, admitted that at the time of the trap, accused no.1 refused to accept the money by saying that he was busy in preparing some other work. He asked the complainant to meet the accused no.2. The evidence indicated that accused no.2 was not aware why the money was thrust in his hand. In my view, this is not a fit case to interfere in an appeal against acquittal. Hence, leave refused. Consequently appeal papers to be filed. Application stands disposed off. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)