IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2733 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Dharamsingh Hiralal Nagarkar .. Respondent Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P for the applicant. Mr.J. Shekhar i/by M/s.J.Shekhar & Co for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 10th February 2009. : 10th February 2009. : 10th February 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned A.P.P for the applicant and the learned advocate for the respondent. The respondent is the 1st accused. By the impugned judgment and order he has been acquitted of the offence under section 7, and section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the 2nd and 3rd accused have been convicted. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the owner of a stationery shop. On 16th July 2003, the respondent and the 2nd and 3rd accused called upon him to produce the octroi receipts and other documents. The case of the prosecution is that the (2) complainant showed the necessary documents. On 01st August 2003 in the afternoon the 2nd accused informed the complainant on his phone that ten bundles of goods were arrived at Central Octroi Post. Accordingly, a relative of the complainant by the name Vinayak went there and he brought the goods to the shop. On 04th August 2003, the allegation of the complainant is that demand was made by the 3rd accused to the said Vinayak of amount of Rs.30,000/-. The case of the prosecution is that the demand was made also on behalf of the respondent. According to the prosecution case, when bribe was accepted by the 2nd accused, and the respondent was not present. The allegation is that the 2nd and 3rd accused contacted the respondent on cell phone. However, the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence regarding conversation between the accused nos.2 and 3 and the respondent herein. The evidence of tape recorded conversation was discarded by the learned Special Judge as the requisite procedure has not been followed. Therefore, the learned Special Judge has granted benefit of doubt to the respondent. 3. The view taken by the learned Judge is a possible view. No case is made out for grant of leave. Application is rejected. (A.S.Oka,J)