(1) CRI.APP. 367.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 367 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra Through Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon .. Applicant VERSUS Hiralal Bhagwan Baivskar .. Respondent Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the Applicant-State Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for the respondent ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This is an Application seeking leave to file Appeal against judgment and order rendered by the Special Judge in Special Case no. 2 of 2005 whereby and where-under the respondent came to be acquitted for offence punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution case before the Special Court was that PW 1 Nirmalabai (complainant) was the Chairman of bachat gat. The proposal for loan of the (2) CRI.APP. 367.2010 said bachat gat was cleared by the Dena Bank. The bachat gat was to receive Rs.20,000/- for which certain information was to be furnished to the concerned bank. She approached the B.D.O. for the purpose of obtaining necessary information as required by the bank. The B.D.O. orally directed her to obtain such information from the Gramsevak. The respondent being Gramsevak, she approached him and requested to furnish the information as required under the format which was to be furnished to the bank. The respondent visited her house on 14.2.2005 and demanded Rs.1,650/- for the purpose of doing the alleged official act. He subsequently visited her house on next day and reduced the demand to Rs.1500/-. She was not willing to pay him the amount. She reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Bureau. A trap was arranged on 19.2.2005. It was alleged that the respondent accepted the amount of Rs.1500/- from PW Nirmalabai in the Office of Grampanchayat. 3. What appears from the record is that PW Nirmalabai is related to the respondent. There is no (3) CRI.APP. 367.2010 evidence on record to show that the amount was collected from the members as the respondent had demanded Rs.150/- from each member of the bachat gat. It is significant to note that PW Nirmalabai approached the respondent as per the oral directions of the B.D.O. There is no record to show that in fact it was part of the duty of the respondent to furnish information and the B.D.O. had given direction to him to do so. Though, PW Nirmalabai narrated that the amount was demanded for issuance of residence certificate and no dues certificate yet nature of such demand was not clearly mentioned in the pre-trap panchanama. The version of panch witness i.e. PW 2 Ashadevi indicated that immediately after the respondent was caught hold of, he offered explanation that his hand loan amount was being returned by Nirmalabai and he had not accepted any bribe. This fact is also corroborated by the Police Officer. Though such explanation was immediately offered, yet it was not shown in the post-trap panchanama. The respondent examined, in his defence, DW Ramesh Pawar from whom he had parted with the (4) CRI.APP. 367.2010 amount. It has come on record that though in his explanation given with promptitude, name of Ramesh Pawar had been disclosed by the respondent yet during the investigation, statement of said witness was not recorded by PW 3 P.I. Mahajan. 4. Considering these aspects of the matter, it will have to be stated that the acquittal of the respondent on basis of deficiencies found in the prosecution evidence and probability of the defence being true one, cannot be faulted with. In this view of the matter, leave to Appeal is refused. The Application and the Appeal are disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp