[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1534 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Vijay Poma Rathod ..Respondent ... Mr.J.P.Yagnik APP for Applicant-State Mr.K.S.Patil Advocate for the Respondent ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The State of Maharshtra has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 05.1.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Special Judge, Solapur in Special (ACB) Case No.4 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the Respondent-accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution case is that the Respondent-accused demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.500/- from the complainant. The Respondent-accused is a constable in the State [-2-] Excise Department and it is the prosecution case that the amount was demanded by the Respondent from the complainant to give blanket protection to the complainant for selling toddy illegally. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant and the learned Advocate for the Respondent. I have perused the evidence produced before me as well as the impugned judgment and order. 4. It is the prosecution case that the amount was demanded and accepted by the Respondent under a tree. This incident took place within the view of the raiding party. However, raiding Officer Police Inspector Mr.Kurundkar is silent on this aspect, so also, no person from the raiding party has stated anything about handing over of the money by the complainant to the Respondent-accused. Admittedly, no anthracene powder was detected on the fingers or hands of the accused. So also, admittedly, the tainted amount was not recovered from the possession of the Respondent-accused. 5. As far as the motive for demand is concerned i.e. the accused demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant for giving him blanket protection [-3-] for selling toddy illegally and for not prosecuting the complainant for the offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act. It is seen that the Respondent-accused is only a constable and there are superior officers of the rank of P.S.I., Police Inspector and Dy. Superintendent of Police serving in the State Excise Department at Solapur. There are number of higher police officers in the police station within which the complainant carries on his toddy business. The complainant in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that because the accused had raided his house, he had to stop his business of selling illicit toddy. From the evidence of the complainant, it is clear that because of the respondent-accused he had stopped the business of selling illicit toddy and after the trap in question, the complainant again started his business of selling illicit toddy and thereafter the Excise Department had filed two cases against him. Thus, it is clear that the complainant is a habitual offender and was carrying on business of selling of illicit toddy at Togarli. Therefore, I find much substance in the submission of the learned advocate for the Respondent-accused that complainant had reverse motive to implicate the [-4-] accused falsely in such type of crime as because of the accused, the complainant had to stop his business of selling illicit toddy at Togarli, whereas on the other hand, the Respondent-accused being only a constable could not have granted blanket protection to the complainant and hence, there was no question of paying any bribe in respect of the same by the complainant to the Respondent-accused. The learned Special Judge has taken all these aspects and other aspects into consideration and has thereafter acquitted the Respondent-accused. Looking to the evidence on record, the view taken by the learned Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 5. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court could have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 AIR 1971 AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1. 1. 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has [-5-] observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 6. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]