1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.782 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra through Anti Corruption Bureau, Latur ..Appellant (Orig.Complainant) Versus Kamlakar s/o Baburao Kenekar ..Respondent (Orig.Accused) Mr.D.R.Kale, A.P.P. for appellant Mr.V.D.Gunale, Advocate for respondent CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J. DATE : 27th September, 2010 PER COURT 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-State challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Latur dated 24.1.2005 in Special Case No.10/2002 acquitting the respondent- accused of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. According to the prosecution the respondent-accused had demanded an amount of Rs.1,500/- for giving a letter of recommendation to the complainant and on the basis of which a trap came to be arranged. Currency notes produced by the complainant were smeared with anthracene powder and accordingly a panchnama came to be drawn. The complainant party which comprised of the complainant, P.W.1 2 Bhalchandra, and panch P.W.2 Shaukat Ali and the other panch proceeded to the office of the respondent. On the day of the trap the respondent was busy and ultimately in order to purchase revenue stamps the accused took the complainant P.W.1 Bhalchandra for purchasing the revenue stamps. He had indicated to the panch witnesses that they should not follow the accused and the complainant. The revenue stamps were accordingly purchased and were affixed to the application at a Pan thela. According to the complainant the accused had demanded the amount and had received the amount and placed the tainted currency notes in his pocket. Complainant P.W.1 Bhalchandra was cross- examined and in order to corroborate his evidence prosecution examined P.W.2 Shaukat Ali, who did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. In the cross-examination on behalf of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, he admitted following the accused and the complainant but at the crucial juncture denied to have witnessed handing over the currency notes. Similarly, the evidence of the other panch also indicates that he had not witnessed the actual handing over the currency notes. Defence of the respondent-accused is of thrusting on account of the enmity, which existed between the complainant P.W.1 Bhalchandra and the accused. The trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused as the prosecution had failed to prove the demand and acceptance by the accused. The trial Court found that the defence of the respondent- accused was probablised in the light of the evidence of P.W.1 Bhalchandra and P.W.2 Shaukat Ali. 3 3. A reference may usefully be made to the decision of Supreme Court in Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1191. The Supreme Court held that the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon by the evidence of panch witnesses. In the present case the evidence of P.W.1 Complainant is not corroborated at all by the evidence of P.W.2 Shaukat Ali. In fact, the evidence of P.W.2 Shaukat Ali leaves lot of room for doubting the bona fides and the truthfulness of the evidence of P.W.1 Bhalchandra. The trial Court has accordingly given the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused. 4. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties I have perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and I do not notice any perversity in reasoning of the trial Court to justify any interference in this appeal. The view of the trial Court also appears to be a possible view. In that light of the matter, there is no merit in the present appeal and the appeal is dismissed confirming the acquittal of respondent- accused. ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/782.05criapeal) 4