1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1330 of 08 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant -versus Namdeo Kondiba Mohare & anr .. Respondents Mr. Y.P.Yagnik, APP for State. Mr.V.B.Tapkir, adv for respondent No.l CORAM; A.S. OKA, J. DATED: 3rd February,2009 P.C. 1. Heard submissions of learned APP for the applicant in support of this application for grant of special leave under sub section 3 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Said Code”). Leave is sought to prefer an appeal against the 2 judgment and order dated 12.12.2007, passed by the learned Special Judge, Pune by which he acquitted respondents for offences punishable u/s 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with section l3(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, l988. 2. According to the prosecution case, first respondent (first accused) is an Assistant Police Inspector and the second respondent(second accused), is a practicing advocate. The complainant is one Rehaman Abbas Inamdar, who was neighbour of Sunil Ganpat Lohokare. The wife of said Sunil had filed a complaint against said Sunil in the police station. Two to three days thereafter the Police Patil took the complainant Rehaman to Police Station. Police Patil asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.l0,000/- to himself and the accused No.l who was Assistant Police Inspector at the relevant time for settling the matter of complaint filed by Sunil’s wife. On 2lst December,2001, the Police Patil had taken the complainant to police station alongwith one Shantaram Raut. The first respondent informed the complainant that the wife of said Sunil had filed a complaint 3 against him. First respondent asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to him and a sum of Rs.200/- to Police Patil to avoid his involvement in the offence. The first respondent informed the complainant to come to the police station on 24th December, 2001 alongwith the amounts. 3. The complainant approached Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged a complaint. Accordingly a trap was laid. The complainant produced cash amount of Rs.2,000/- containing four currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each and anthracene powder was applied to the said currency notes. The notes were kept in the chest pocket of the shirt of the complainant. 4. On the relevant date, the complainant alongwith Panch witness entered Junnar Police station. Rest of the raiding party halted outside the police station. The complainant and Panch witness entered the police station and met first respondent. The first respondent asked the complainant as to whether the work is done. The complainant answered that he had brought the amount. At 4 that time, one person came there and stated that all of them should proceed to have a cup of tea. Accordingly the complainant, panch witness, first accused and the other person proceeded to the canteen near police station. After occupying seats in the canteen, the first respondent demanded the amount. The complainant collected tainted notes from his left chest pocket and held the same before the said first accused. First accused asked the complainant to pay the said amount to the third person accompanying them, who is second respondent(second accused). Therefore, the complainant handed over tainted notes to the second respondent who accepted the same and kept in his pocket. Thereafter the complainant, panch witness and both the accused came out of the canteen and proceeded towards the Police station. While proceeding towards the police station, the complainant gave a signal to the members of raiding party. 5. Thereafter the raiding party caught both the accused. The amount in the hip pocket of the second 5 respondent was collected by Panch witnesses. When hands and clothes of the second respondent were examined in ultra violet lamp, blue glittering was noticed on the notes, hip pocket and hands of the second respondent. 6. The learned APP has taken me through the impugned judgment of acquittal and notes of evidence. He pointed out that the demand by first respondent and the acceptance of the bribe by the second respondent has been duly proved. He submitted that the demand was made by the first respondent in presence of the second respondent and on the instructions of the first respondent, tainted notes were handed over to the second respondent. He pointed out that the tainted notes were found in the hip pocket of the second respondent. He submitted that there is no dispute as regards the fact that the second respondent was found in possession of tainted notes. He submitted that the learned Judge has taken into consideration minor discrepancies which do not affect the foundation of the case of the prosecution. He submitted that the impugned judgment and 6 order is perverse. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. I have perused the notes of evidence. In the examination in chief, the complainant stated that after tainted notes were handed over to the second respondent, he collected an amount of Rs.5/- out of the rest of the amount possessed by him and he paid the bill of canteen. In the examination in chief it is stated that fingers of his right hand and inner portion of left pocket of his shirt showed blue glittering when examined under ultra violet lamp. 8. It will be necessary to refer what the complainant stated in paragraph l0 of his cross examination, “By using left hand I have collected amount from right pocket of my pant and paid bill of tea, by removing Rs.370/-. I have paid coin of Rs.5/- towards bill of tea. It is true that after paying bill of tea in canteen I went to police station.” 7 9. The learned Special Judge has observed that it is not possible to accept that by using his left hand the complainant collected the amount from right hand side pocket of his trouser. 10. The evidence of the complainant shows that he has all along denied the fact that he was acquainted with the second respondent. P.W.2 Kiran Bhalekar, who was Panch witness who accompanied the complainant disclosed that at the entry point of Police Station, the complainant met one person and he asked the said person to go in the police station. He identified said person as the second accused. P.W 2 stated that after talking to the complainant, he came to know that the second respondent(second accused) is an advocate. P.W.2 stated that he had a talk with the second respondent and from the second respondent he came to know that as an Advocate, the second respondent had got released said Sunil on bail. A suggestion was given to P.W . 2 that the second respondent demanded his fees to the complainant and therefore, the complainant asked the 8 second respondent to come inside the police station. The response of the P.W.2 was that he was unable to remember. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that P.W.1 came out with a false story that he was not acquainted with second respondent. The learned Judge observed that entry of the second respondent in the police station is on the request of P.W.1 complainant. 11. One more aspect has been considered by the learned Judge, P.W.l stated that he paid a bill of the canteen in the sum of Rs.5/-in the form of a coin. The learned Judge observed that Pre trap panchnama did not show that he was possessing a coin of Rs.5/-. 12. The perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Special Judge has considered oral testimony of witnesses and has recorded his conclusion that the guilt of the respondents is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. After having perused the notes of evidence I find that the conclusion drawn by the learned Judge is certainly a possible conclusion, especially when documentary evidence was 9 produced on record to show that second respondent had acted as an advocate for the said Sunil. The Said Sunil was the neighbour of the complainant and was working in the field of the complainant. No case is made out for grant of leave. The application is rejected. (A.S.OKA J.)