1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3707 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ..Petitioner V/s Dagadu Manohar Rathod ..Respondent ..... Mrs.B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for applicant. Mr.S.S. Choudhari, advocate for respondent. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J DATE : 2nd July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mrs.B.R. Khekale, learned A.P.P. for applicant as well as Mr.S.S. Choudhari, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.07.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (S.C.) No.1/2008, acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of 2 Corruption Act. 3. The accused namely Dagadu Manohar Rathod i.e. respondent herein, who was the Head Constable attached to Police Station, Kallam at the relevant time faced trial for the above referred offences in the aforesaid case for allegedly demanding bribe of Rs.10,000/- and allegedly accepted the bribe of Rs.5,000/- out of the said amount. 4. I have gone through the contents of the impugned judgment with the assistance of Mrs.B.R. Khekale, learned A.P.P. for applicant and Mr.S.S. Choudhari, learned counsel for respondent. 5. To substantiate the charges levelled against the respondent/accused, the prosecution examined in as much as six witnesses i.e. P.W. 1-Lalita Pawar- complainant, P.W.2-Tatya Shinde-panch witness, P.W.3- Dattatraya Mandalik-Superintendent of Police, who issued sanction order, P.W.4-Baban Ohal-another panch witness, P.W.5-Shiva Pawar-cousin of Lalita Pawar and P.W. 6-Mohammad Shaikh, Dy.S.P., ACB. However, out of 3 the said six witnesses, three witnesses i.e. P.W.1- Lalita Pawar, complainant, P.W.2-Tatya Shinde-panch witness and P.W.5-Shiva Pawar-cousin of Lalita Pawar turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Learned trial Judge also observed in the impugned judgment that as P.W.1-Lalita Pawar and P.W. 2-Tatya Shinde did not support the prosecution. Although, the prosecution examined another panch as P.W. 4-Baban Ohal, surprisingly, P.W.4-Baban Ohal also put up different story than what is alleged by the prosecution. Hence, it is apparently clear that there is no consistency in the prosecution theory put forth before the trial Court and hence, consequently the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt in that respect. Moreover, after scrutinising and appreciating the evidence, the view adopted by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad, does not appear to be perverse. 6. So also, the view adopted by the trial Judge, after analyzing the evidence, is a possible view to be adopted and since it does not appear to be perverse, 4 no interference therein is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction therein. 7. I am, therefore, of the opinion that, this is not fit case to grant leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. 8. In the result, the present application stands dismissed and leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal stands refused. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri3707.09