1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3530 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s Ashok Shankarrao Mokashi and another. ..Respondents ..... Mr.B.R.Khekale, A.P.P. for applicant. Mr.D.G. Chewale holding for Mr.A.S. Kadam, advocate for respondents. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J DATE : 12th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mrs.B.R. Khekale, learned A.P.P. for applicant as well as Mr.D.G. Chewale, learned counsel holding for Mr.A.S. Kadam, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant-State, seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26th May, 2009, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (AC) No.4/2007, acquitting the 2 respondent nos.1 and 2 (original accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.05.2009 and the Record and Proceedings with the assistance of learned A.P.P. for applicant-State and learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. 4. It is alleged that respondent no.1-Ashok Shankarrao Mokashi was working as Talathi of Itkal Sajja, Tq.Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad and respondent no. 2-Dattatraya Manik Mule was working as Kotwal of Itkal Sajja, Tq.Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad at the relevant time. The complainant-Basu Dattu Gaikwad, R/o Vijapur Naka, Zopadpatti No.1, Solapur filed complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau, Osmanabad against the said respondents on 12.06.2006 alleging that the respondent nos.1 and 2 demanded bribe from him for effecting mutation entry of land Gat No.115. To substantiate the above referred charges, the prosecution examined in as 3 much as six witnesses i.e. P.W-1-Basu Dattu Gaikwad- complainant, P.W.-2-Ramrao Shamrao Domkavale-panch witness, P.W.3-Kisan Laxman Najan-P.I. ACB, P.W.4- Jagannath Balbhimrao Choure-R.I., P.W.-5-Shesherao Savargaonkar i.e. Sanctioning Authority, P.W. 6-Mohamd Yunus Ismail Shaikh-Investigating Officer. After scrutinising and after appreciating the evidence, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them by the judgment and order dated 26.05.2009. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of acquittal, applicant-State has preferred present application seeking leave to file appeal. 5. It is seen from the record that P.W-2 panch witness-Ramrao Domkavale has admitted in his cross- examination that Talathi did not demand the bribe to the complainant in his presence during those 5 to 7 minutes, nor he made inquiry about the bribe money. He also stated that the accused no.2 i.e. respondent no.2 did not demand the bribe money in his house nor did he make inquiry about the bribe money. Hence, it appears that the said panch witness P.W.-2-Ramrao Domkavale 4 has not corroborated with the version of the complainant i.e. P.W.1-Basu Gaikwad in respect of demand and payment of alleged bribe money. 6. It also appears from the impugned judgment and order that the work of complainant in respect of mutation was already done on 10.04.2006, but it is a specific case of the complainant that on 12.06.2006, the accused no.1 demanded the bribe money from him and hence, the Trial Judge rightly observed that there is no reason as to why the complainant should give the bribe to the accused on 12.06.2006, when the work of the complainant in respect of effecting mutation entry was already done on 10.04.2006. 7. In the circumstances, it appears that the view adopted by the trial Judge, after scrutinising and appreciating the evidence on record, is a possible view to be adopted and reasonings adopted by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused/respondents can not be faulted with. Consequently, no perversity is found therein, and therefore, no interference is warranted therein in the 5 appellate jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the present application being sans merit, stands dismissed and leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal stands refused. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri3530.09