20.cr appln 4323-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4323 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs Ramesh Tukaram Pawar .. Respondent Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the Statement None for the Respondent CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. The applicant - State of Maharashtra has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.04.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. (A.C.) No. 1 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the respondents i.e original accused came to be acquitted of the offences under sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that the accused was posted in Grampanchayat at Khed as the Village Development Officer and he was working there as Class-III Government servant. The informant PW 1 Ramu Jadhav was working as a contractor. His tender for sub-base graveling 1 20.cr appln 4323-10.doc was accepted by Khed Grampanchayat. He completed the work within the stipulated time. On completion of the work, his dues were to be paid by installment. Out of the said amount, he received Rs. 53000/- by cheques. Thereafter, cheque of Rs. 8000/- was handed over to him on 2nd June 2008, at that time, the respondent-original accused asked the complainant to give a bribe of Rs. 500/- by 7th June 2008, otherwise the next cheque would not be issued. On 6th June 2008, the complainant went to ACB Office and lodged his report (Exh. 13), hence, a trap came to be arranged. It is further the prosecution case that during the trap, the respondent demanded Rs. 500/- which was given by the informant to him. 3. Charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act came to be framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. 4. I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State of Maharashtra. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. After carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated herein below, I am of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge does not call for any interference. 2 20.cr appln 4323-10.doc 5. It is pertinent to note that the informant PW 1 Ramu Jadhav has turned hostile in his cross-examination. He has admitted that he did not pay huge tax dues for the last three years and that the respondent-accused demanded the amount in writing from the informant towards property tax. It has also come on record that the panch witness in the case is a habitual panch. The learned Special Judge has taken into consideration all above aspects and thereafter, acquitted the respondent - original accused. Looking to the evidence on record, I find that conclusion arrived at by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 6. The plenitude of power available to the Court hearing an appeal against acquittal is the same as that available to a court hearing an appeal against an order of conviction, but, however, the court hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere solely because a different possible view may arise on the evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of C. Anthony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair reported in (2003) 1 SCC 1 has observed that while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court. I have already observed that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, I am not inclined to 3 20.cr appln 4323-10.doc interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. In view of the above, leave to file appeal, is refused. Application is rejected. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4