1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.169 of 2010 IN Criminal Application No. of 2010 [Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Rajkar Sainppa Waghmare] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Shyam Ahirkar, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. C.H. Jaltare, Adv., for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 05th April, 2010. 1. Heard. 2. Accepting the reasons contained in the application explaining the delay to be good and sufficient, the delay of 204 days caused in filing of application for leave to appeal is condoned. Judge |Hedau| 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. of 2010 [Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Rajkar Sainppa Waghmare] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Shyam Ahirkar, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. C.H. Jaltare, Adv., for respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 05th April, 2010. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal. 2. Heard. 3. On account of various reasons, the learned Special Judge found that the prosecution case was not proved. 4. On perusal of Judgment and upon hearing learned Adv., for the appellant, the reasons which have led learned Special Judge to the acquittal are as follows:- [a] That, there was a variation in the story of demand. [b] The story of demand and payment of bribe amount came under cloud of doubt due to variation. 3 [c] As mentioned in Para 15 of the Judgment, the power to grant compensation to the tune it was assessed was not vested with the accused, and he was not competent to do the act towards which he is alleged to have demanded the bribe. 5. These findings are not shown to be erroneous. 6. In the circumstances, no interference is called for. 7. Application has no merit, and is rejected. 8. Naturally, the appeal also fails. Judge |Hedau|