IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2729 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant. (Org. Complainant) Versus 1. Abdul Salim Babulal Chandkote and anr. ... Respondents. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP, for the Applicant . Mr. B.R. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : MARCH 24, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor in support of this application for grant of leave to prefer an appeal against order of acquittal dated 27/02 / 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Pandharpur. The Respondents accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sec. 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The first Respondent was employed as Talathi of Revenue Village Chinake. The Complainant is one Bharat Dattatraya Shedage. In August 2004, the Complainant approached the first Respondent with an application for recording his name as legal representative of the deceased Savitrabai in the Revenue record relating to land bearing Gat No. 277. The allegation of the Complainant is that the first Respondent demanded illegal gratification in the sum of Rs.600/- from the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that initially he paid a sum of Rs.300 /- to the first Respondent. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged a complaint. Accordingly, a trap was laid. The Complainant was given 3 currency notes of : 2 : Rs.100/- each to which anthracene powder was applied. The Complainant alongwith Panch witness met the first Respondent in his office. At that time, it was found that the first Respondent alongwith another person was standing under the tree near the office. The first Respondent took the Complainant and Panch witness in a nearby Restaurant for a cup of tea. After having a cup of tea they came out of the Restaurant, at that time, the first Respondent enquired with the Complainant whether he had brought a sum of Rs.300/- . The Complainant took out 3 currency notes of Rs.300/- from his shirt pocket and held the same in front of the first Respondent. The first Respondent instructed the Complainant to pay the said amount to the second Respondent and accordingly, the amount was paid. Thereafter, the Complainant gave a signal. The raiding party immediately came there, after noticing this fact, the second accused /second Respondent threw the notes on the ground. The raiding party caught the first and second Respondents. 2. After a Trial, learned Special Judge passed an order of acquittal on the ground that the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount has not been proved. The learned Special Judge also held that the sanction granted by the Sub Division Officer to prosecute the first accused was not valid. 3. I have heard the detailed submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record of the Trial Court. The sanction for prosecuting the first Respondent who was Talathi has been granted by the Sub Divisional Officer. The learned Special Judge held that the Sub Divisional Officer had no authority to grant sanction. It is not : 3 : necessary to deal with this aspect as on merits there is no case to interfere. However, the finding of the Trial Court on the aspect of sanction shall not be treated as having been confirmed by this Court as prima facie there is a merit in the submission of the learned APP on this aspect. 4. The case of the Complainant was that on 17/07 / 2 004, he made an application for incorporating his name as legal heir of Savitrabai. However, death certificate of Savitrabai placed on record shows that she died on 21/07 / 2007. The learned Special Judge held that in the circumstances, there was no occasion for the Complainant to make an application on 17/07 / 2004. 5. According to the case of the prosecution witnesses, even in the Restaurant where the first Respondent had taken the Complainant and Panch witness for a cup of tea, no demand was made by the first Respondent. Only after they came out of the Restaurant a demand was allegedly made. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the bribe amount was accepted by the second Respondent. The defence of the second Respondent is that the Complainant tried to thrust the amount in his hands. 6. The learned Special Judge after consideration of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has disbelieved the case of demand by the first Respondent and the acceptance of the amount by the second Respondent. The finding recorded by the learned Special Judge that a demand for illegal gratification was not established is supported by the evidence on record. The finding recorded by the learned Special Judge is a possible finding. 7. Hence no interference is called for in an appeal against acquittal. Accordingly, application is rejected. (A.S. OKA, J.)