1 APPLN-470.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.470 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant Vs. Baban Maruti Kale .... Respondent Ms M.M. Deshmukh, APP, for the Applicant-State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JUNE 10, 2011 P.C: This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent rendered by the learned Special Judge, Pune in Special Case No.2 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The first informant, Wing Commander Durgaprasad Sadashiv Kasbekar, was in need of some original document from the office of the Sub-Registrar, which office the respondent was holding. He had approached the respondent who allegedly demanded, on 17-2-2006, a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Durgaprasad paid a sum of Rs.500/- on that day and agreed to come with the balance 2 APPLN-470.11 on the next date. He then contacted the Anti- Corruption Bureau and a trap was arranged. On 18-2-2006 Durgaprasad went to the office of the respondent with a panch witness as arranged. Without the respondent demanding money, Durgaprasad himself told the respondent that he had brought the amount as directed by the respondent. The respondent is alleged to have first told Durgaprasad to keep the money on the table which Durgaprasad kept on the table of the respondent. According to the panch witness, the respondent accepted the money from Durgaprasad and then kept it on the table and then the raiding party came. The learned Judge has concluded that the respondent could not be held guilty, first because the respondent was not authorised to give the original documents and in any case even the complainant knew that he was not to get the original document from the respondent and therefore there was no question of demanding or accepting any bribe. The learned Judge next held that there was no demand at the time of the trap and in view of the discrepant evidence of the first informant and the panch witness refused to hold the respondent guilty for accepting illegal gratification. The view taken by the learned Judge cannot be said to be improbable or 3 APPLN-470.11 perverse, since it would be difficult to believe that an officer would ask a bribe giver to keep the bribe on the table. It would be rather consistent with the attempt of bribe giver to bribe the public servant. It would be incredible to believe that a person accepting bribe, after accepting it and after allowing his fingers to be smeared, would keep the amount on the table rather than anywhere else. Since the view taken by the learned Judge is probable, leave refused. Appeal is dismissed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)