1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3774 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra Through Anti Corruption Bureau Jalna, District Jalna. - APPLICANT (orig. Complainant) VERSUS Pandurang s/o Gauaji Kale, Age: 43 Yrs., occu. Service (Talathi) r/o Vaijinathnagar Behind Pangarkarnagar, Jalna. - RESPONDENT (orig.Accused) ***** Mrs.BR Khekale, A.P.P. for Applicant/State; Mr.S.B.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent. ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J. DATE : 18th June, 2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard Mrs.Khekale, learned APP for Applicant/State and Mr.SB Deshmukh, learned counsel for sole respondent. 2 2) This is an application preferred by the applicant/State, seeking leave to file an appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th July, 2009, rendered by Judge, Special Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, in Special Case No.2/2009, acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3) I have gone through the impugned Judgment dated 29th July, 2009 as well as the Record and Proceedings with the assistance of learned APP for the applicant/State and learned Counsel for the respondent/original accused. The respondent(original accused) faced the trial in the aforesaid Special Case No.2/2009 for the above referred charges and to substantiate the said charge, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses, viz. P.W.1 – Sayed Haidar s/o Sayed Amir; P.W.2 -Vikas Sambre; P.W.3 -Ramesh Kayande, Deputy Collector and Sanctioning 3 authority; P.W.4 -Ramesh Shinde; and P.W.5 -Dilip Bhagwat, the complainant and Investigating Officer. 4) It is alleged that P.W.1 – Sayed Haidar has purchased an agricultural land bearing Gut No.120 having area of 1 acre and 7 Gunthas by registered sale-deed dated 3rd July, 2008. Admittedly, the respondent (original accused) was working as Talathi at Badnapur hence, P.W.1- Sayed Haidar went to the office of the accused on 25.7.2008 in order to get his name mutated in the revenue record of the said land, however, the accused allegedly demanded Rs.3,000/- to do the said work. It is also alleged that P.W.1 – Sayed Haidar gave Rs.2,500/- to the accused and thereupon the accused asked him to come after fifteen days. It is further alleged that the accused demanded remaining amount of Rs.500/- to complete the work, therefore, P.W.1 – Sayed Haider approached to the office of Anti- corruption Bureau, Jalna and after completing the 4 formalities, trap was laid and the accused was allegedly caught red handed while accepting the bribe. 5) After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence, the learned Trial Judge observed that there is inconsistency in the evidence of the complainant and P.W.2 -Vikas, i.e. Panch witness. It was also observed by the learned Judge that there is material variance in the evidence of the complainant, P.W.2 – Vikas (panch) and P.W.5 – Dilip (Investigating officer) and, therefore, it is unsafe to place reliance on their testimonies to show that the accused demanded bribe and accepted the same. It is further observed by the learned Judge that on scrutiny of the entire evidence collected by the prosecution, since there is inconsistency in the evidence of the complainant, the panch witness and the investigating officer, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not enough to indicate that the accused made demand of bribe and accepted the 5 bribe and ultimately came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thereby acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him by the judgment and order dated 29th July, 2009. 6) Having comprehensive view of the matter and considering the impugned judgment and record and proceedings and after analyzing the evidence, I am of the view that the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Judge, after scrutinizing the evidence on record, cannot be faulted with. Moreover, the view adopted by the learned Trial Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, is a possible view and same does not appear to be perverse and, therefore, no interference therein is warranted. 7) In the result, the present application, therefore, bears no substance and same is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed and leave to 6 file appeal stands refused. R. and P. be sent back to the concerned Court. (SHRIHARI P.DAVARE) JUDGE bdv/cran3774.09