1 appln 548 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.548 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. -versus Kiran Ravindra Bhosale .. Respondent. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the Applicant State. Mr. Ganesh Gole, for the Respondent CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 30th June, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ordered by the learned Special Judge, Kolhapur. The respondent police constable who is alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.15,000/- from the first informant, who was found illegally transferring domestic gas in other cylinders and was selling the gas cylinders. Rs.10,000/- were allegedly paid by the complainant on 2.9.2006 itself. For balance payment of of Rs.5,000/- respondent was to contact first informant. First informant approached A.C.B. which arranged for a trap on 12.9.2006. The trap failed on 12.9.2006 since the respondent did not accept money. Thereafter on 14.9.2006, again trap was arranged. First 2 appln 548 of 2011 informant allegedly contacted respondent on mobile phone, but the mobile phone was switched off. Respondent is alleged to have called first informant to a particular place. The first informant was taken as pillion rider on the motorcycle being driven by respondent. First informant allegedly paid when the motorcycle was in motion. Respondent accepted the same by his left hand and kept in left side shirt pocket. A.C.B. officers stopped the motorcycle when respondent is alleged to have thrown the currency notes from his pocket by using both of his hand. Necessary post trap panchnama was performed. The learned Judge held that the evidence was discrepant and it was not possible to hold that the respondent had demanded bribe or received money. The learned Judge also held that it is highly impossible that after paying Rs.10,000/- complainant would allow the accused to take away two gas cylinders or the accused would take two gas cylinders when he had received bribe of Rs.10,000/-. In any case the conduct of the parities in this case goes to show that it is the first informant somehow wanted to trap the respondent. On the first day trap failed and on the second day money is alleged to have been received while accused was riding a motorcycle, which the first informant could have pushed in pocket of accused. The view taken by the learned Judge therefore, cannot be said to be improper. Apart from, this it is also brought before the learned trial Court that the respondent was in fact ordered in 3 appln 548 of 2011 writing on 3.8.2006 by his superior Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch to check whether the first informant was unlawfully transferring the domestic LPG in other cylinders and was selling gas cylinders. Therefore, the possibility of respondent being trapped as respondent was trying to nab the first informant very much existed. Since the view taken by the learned Judge is not perverse. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)