( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1556 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1555 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Anil Changdev Ahire RESPONDENT ..... Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the applicant/State. Mr. P.S. Shinde, advocate holding for Smt. S.S. Jadhav, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. These are the applications for condonation of delay and leave to appeal, preferred by the State against the judgement of acquittal, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (AC) ( 2 ) No. 9/2006. 3. The delay is of only eight (8) days. The delay appears to be on account of reasons stated in the application. The delay is unintentional. The explanation given in the application is accepted. Hence, the delay is condoned. The criminal application No. 1556/2009 is accordingly allowed. 4. The respondent was tried in Special Case (AC) No. 9/2006 before the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad for alleged demand of acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- for effecting mutation entry in favour of wife of the complainant – PW Mahadeo in the 7/12 record. The wife of the complainant, namely, Smt. Sindhubai is the only issue of her parents. Her father was having certain agricultural property. Her father – Ramling gave the agricultural lands to said Smt. Sindhubai as per the consent decree rendered in suit bearing R.C.S.No. 298/2006. The complainant – PW Mahadeo allegedly approached the respondent, who was working as Talathi of the village on 02-07-2006 ( 3 ) alongwith application dated 01-07-2006 for recording entries in name of Smt. Sindhubai in the 7/12 register as owner of the lands given to her by the father. The respondent demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/- for doing the work pertaining to recording of the mutation entry and issuance of the 7/12 extracts. On pleading by PW Mahadeo about excessive demand, the amount was reduced to Rs. 1500/-. Then, PW Mahadeo gave amount of Rs. 1000/- on the same day. The respondent lateron demanded the remaining amount of Rs. 500/- which was to be paid on 25-07-2006. Being reluctant to pay such an amount, PW Mahadeo approached the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) and lodged a report. The Dy. Superintendent of Police of A.C.B. arranged for trap. The appellant/applicant was caught red-handed after acceptance of the tainted currency notes of Rs. 500/-. The defence of the respondent was that father-in-law of the complainant was in arrears of the land revenue to the tune of Rs. 304/- at the material time. He was also required to pay Rs. 88/- towards sugarcane tax, etc. Before the mutation entry was recorded in the relevant register, it was necessary to clear the arrears of the ( 4 ) land revenue. It was also pleaded that there was no demand for Rs. 1500/- nor amount of Rs. 1000/- was paid by PW Mahadeo on 02-07-2006. According to the defence, name of father-in-law of the complainant – PW Mahadeo was not recorded in the list of beneficiaries to whom exgratia payments were required to be made on account of damages sustained by the holders of land situated at the river bank, on account of excessive rainfall in that village. So, he had nurtured grudge against the respondent. The learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent on the ground that the first demand of Rs. 1500/- was doubtful. It has been held that there was inexplicable delay in lodging of the complaint before the A.C.B. The learned Special Judge also noticed that the land revenue arrears were outstanding against Ramling i.e. father-in-law of the respondent and were required to be cleared before sanctioning of the mutation entry. The version of defence witness, DW Hanumant Tamane, who is Talathi, is believed by the learned Special Judge. 5. The application for mutation of entry in name ( 5 ) of wife of PW Mahadeo (complainant) was submitted on 01-07-2006 alongwith the copy of the decree rendered in the civil suit. The respondent asserted that he, in fact, effected the mutation entry on 02-07-2006 and forwarded the same for final sanction by the Circle Inspector as per the procedure. The evidence on record reveals that besides bald version of PW Mahadeo, there is no material to indicate that demand of Rs. 1500/- was made and he paid Rs. 1000/- on 02-07-2006 to the respondent. It is worthy to be noted that on 02-07-2006 itself, the respondent recommended the mutation entry to the Circle Inspector. Thus, the respondent did not create any impediment in the process of sanctioning of the mutation entry. It is important to notice that though the alleged demand was made on 02-07-2006, yet, until 25-07-2006, PW Mahadeo did not approach the A.C.B. According to him, after 02-07-2006, he approached the respondent only on 25-07-2006 in order to inquire about the work of mutation. Then, the respondent demanded the balance amount of Rs. 500/-. There is delay of approximately 19 days in giving of the report to the A.C.B. The learned Special Judge duly considered the ( 6 ) dictum in “V. Venkata Subbarao v. State” 2007 CRI.L.J. 754 (S.C.). The Apex Court noticed delay of 15 days in filing of the complaint after the demand and even after the cause for making such demand had disappeared and, therefore, regarded such circumstance in favour of the defence. In the present case, there is delay of 19 days in filing of the report with the A.C.B. and cause of such demand to the extent of the work in hand of the respondent was over when he had forwarded the proposal for sanctioning of the mutation entry to the Circle Inspector. The learned Special Judge also noticed that xerox copy of the panchanama was furnished to PW2 Shaikh Yunus who was examined as a shadow witness for the purpose of recalling the incident. He was given the relevant copy prior to about one (1) month of entering the witness box. He deposed verbatim like the recitals of the said panchanama. The learned Special Judge, therefore, inferred that PW Shaikh Yunus had sufficient time to memorize the recitals of the panchanama by heart and was thus a tutored witness. It has come on the record that father-in-law of PW Mahadeo was in arrears ( 7 ) of land revenue at the material time. The defence version is corroborated by DW Hanumant in so far as procedure for recovery of the land revenue arrears prior to sanctioning of the mutation entry is concerned. The explanation furnished by the respondent was found probable in the circumstances and on basis of the material placed on record. 6. Considering the attending circumstances and the reasons ascribed by the learned Special Judge, I do not find substantial reason to grant leave to appeal. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the criminal appeal stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN1556-09