IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1464 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1464 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1464 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant versus Ishwar Tukaram Kate & ors....... Respondent. Shri A.S.Shitole APP for State Shri S.P.Kadam for Respondents 1 and 2. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 25TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 25TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 25TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. This is an application seeking leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge, Pandharpur acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under sections 7,12. 13(i)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel. Perused the judgment. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused demanded and accepted an illegal gratification from the complainant for favourably recommending the case of the complainant’s father-in-law seeking permission for alienating the land. The court has found that much prior to the alleged demand, the accused no.1 had forwarded the papers favourably recommending the application and thus there remained nothing to be further done by the accused. What is to be noted is that the accused no.1 allegedly called the complainant with the illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- at Mayakka Mauli Hotel at 10.00 a.m. The panch witness and complainant got down from the trax and proceeded to the said spot. The accused no.1 did not turn up at the said place, and hence the complainant telephonically enquired from the family members of the accused no.1 about his whereabouts. Thereafter the trax was moved to Tahsildar’s office and the accused no.1 was not found at the said place and thus ultimately the trax was moved to circle office and from that place allegedly the accused nos. 1 and 2 took the complainant to some other place. Perusal of the sequence of events clearly reveals that it was not the accused no.1 who was demanded the money but it was the complainant and the trap which was moving from place to place in search of the accused to offer the bribe. In this fact situation the trial court has ultimately found that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused no.1 demanded the amount. Even the panchanama shows that the trap was not prepared at the place of incident but was prepared at the same guest house. Appreciating the evidence on record, a very much possible view of the matter has been taken, acquitting the accused. Perused the judgment. The same does not call for any interference. Hence application seeking leave is rejected. ....