1 Cri-A-38-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant/Appellant (Orig. complainant) Vs. Nivrutti Jagannath Parse ... Respondent (Orig. accused) Mr. Rajesh More, Advocate, for the applicant - State Mr. Vishwanath Talkute, Advocate for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 14th March, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. This application is filed by the State seeking leave to prefer appeal against the acquittal of the accused/respondent for the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Digambar Shivaji Gaikwad wanted to obtain some loan as an educated unemployed person and for 2 Cri-A-38-10.sxw this purpose, he obtained certified copy of 7 x 12 extract of his land. In the 7 x 12 extract, his name was wrongly recorded as Annasaheb Shivaji Gaikwad, while his correct name was Digambar even as per the school record. He applied at Tahsil office for correction of his name. The application was referred to the accused, who was Talathi of the concerned village. According to the complainant, for making the correction, the accused had made a demand of Rs.500/-. Therefore, he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau. After completing all the formalities, a trap was laid. The complainant allegedly handed over the tainted note of Rs.500/- to the accused in presence of panch witness. The accused, after obtaining that note, immediately went away on a motor-cycle even before any signal could be given to the raiding party. After that the complainant entered the office of Talathi and there he was told that he would get the corrected copy within two days. Then he came out and gave a signal to the raiding party. The raiding party chased the accused and he was caught. The said tainted note was found in his leather wallet and on the fingers of his hand, Anthracene powder was detected. According to the accused, one month before that, he had recovered the land revenue and had issued a receipt for the same to the accused but the the amount was deficit and therefore deficit amount was to be paid by the complainant. The complainant handed over note of Rs.500/- to him and he immediately returned on amount of Rs.350/- to him. According to him, this amount of Rs.150/- was received by him 3 Cri-A-38-10.sxw towards the arrears of land revenue. 4. As per the evidence on record, the complainant also admitted that the accused had returned amount of Rs.150/- to him. He also produced a land revenue receipt on the next day. This trap had taken place on 23.2.2007, while it was pointed out that the correction of his name was already made on 22.2.2007. The learned trial Court noted that while according to the prosecution, the accused had demanded Rs.500/-, according to the complainant, out of the amount of Rs.500/-, the accused had returned him amount of Rs.150/-, but he did not give any signal to the raiding party at that time. He entered into the office of Talathi. After some time he came out and gave signal. He had taken that much time possibly to conceal the amount which was returned by the accused. There was no evidence about the demand of money as bribe in presence of the panch witnesses. The complainant had simply handed over Rs.500/- note to the accused and the accused had returned some money to him, though the amount returned differs according to the complainant and according to the accused. Due to the said circumstances, the learned trial court acquitted him holding that prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had made a demand of Rs.500/- and had accepted the amount of Rs.500/- as a bribe. 4 Cri-A-38-10.sxw 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, it is difficult to say that the impugned order is per-se wrong, illegal or perverse. Merely because after re-appreciation of evidence, a different view may also be possible, the judgment and order of acquittal cannot be set aside by the appellate Court. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)