* 1 * Cri.Appln. 5106.2010 24.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5106 OF 2010 [FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ......Applicant V/S. Dr. Sunil Hanmant Taralekar .........Respondent * * * * * * Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State­applicant. None for the respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 24 February, 2011. P.C. : 1. This is an application filed by the State for leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5th June, 2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the respondent­ veterinary Doctor who is working with the State as Live Stock Development Officer, has been acquitted of the offences punishable * 2 * Cri.Appln. 5106.2010 24.2.2011 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The respondent is alleged to have taken bribe of Rs.900/­ for issuing post­mortem report in respect of the deceased cow from the complainant. According to the prosecution case, the initial demand of bribe was of Rs.2,000/­ which was later reduced to Rs.1,000/­ and finally the amount paid was of Rs.900/­. The complainant had approached the Anti­Corruption Bureau in connection with the alleged demand made by the respondent. Thereafter, the trap was laid and the respondent was caught with the marked currency notes of Rs.900/­. The respondent did not deny receipt of Rs.900/­ from the complainant. It was, however, the specific defence that the amount recovered from him given by the complainant, was not towards illegal gratification but was towards the arrears of medical bill inrespect of the medical aid provided by him to the cattle of the complainant. The respondent relied upon the Government Resolution dated 22nd January, 1986 of the State of Maharashtra which allows the Live Stock Development Officers to do private practise, subject to some conditions. This defence had been taken by * 3 * Cri.Appln. 5106.2010 24.2.2011 the respondent right from the beginning. He also produced the copy of the resolution dated 22nd January, 1986. The trial Court noted that there was no evidence before the Court of the initial demand of Rs.2,000/­ which was reduced to Rs.1,000/­ and further to Rs.900/­ as the complainant­P.W.1 had turned hostile. 3. In the above facts of the case, the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible view and does not require interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, the application is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]