1 (Crim Apeal 368 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 368 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant Vs. Appasaheb R. Hatti ...Respondent ----- Mr.P.S. Hingorani -APP for the State Mr. M.S. Mohite for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 23RD AUGUST, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the Learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The State has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge in Special Case No.1 of 1992. 3. By the said judgment and order dated 9 th April, 1999, the learned Special Judge was pleased to acquit the Respondent-Accused for the offences punishable under section 7 r/w. Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act and the Accused No.2 2 (Crim Apeal 368 of 2009) being the wife of the Accused No.1 was also acquitted for the offences under section 7 r/w. 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case in nutshell is that one Ramchandra Mahadeo Parte was a registered medical practitioner. He was also a contractor and he used to take contracts for repairing roads from Zilha Parished and other local authorities. He had submitted a tender for renewal and construction of 12 roads from the Zilha Parished. In the said repair work, he had received an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and the total estimated cost was Rs.3,75,000/-. According to the Complainant, thereafter, he completed the remaining work as per the terms and conditions of the tender and had submitted his bill to the Zilha Parished. It is the case of the Complainant that the Accused No.2 had demanded Rs.20,000/- for approval of the two bills tendered by him to the Zilha Parished. According to the Complainant, the first demand was made on 6.1.1989 at the house of the accused and the second demand was made on 10.1.1989. The Complainant filed a complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau on 11.1.1989. Pre-trap panchnama was made. The Investigating Officer gave an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant and they 3 (Crim Apeal 368 of 2009) applied anthrosin powder on both the sides of the 200 currency notes of 100 denomination each. Thereafter, the Complainant went to the house of the Accused and according to the Complainant after the demand was made, the accused gave the said amount. The Complainant gave the signal to the raiding party, who promptly came there and caught the Respondent-Accused red-handed. 5. The Trial Court held that neither demand nor acceptance of the tented money was proved by the prosecution. The Special Judge, further held that the sanction was not properly granted and on all three grounds, the prosecution case was not accepted and the Sessions Court was pleased to acquit the Accused. 6. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has taken me to the judgment and order of the Trial Court and also the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on record. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused. 8. It is a well settled position in law that the Appellate Court while exercising its jurisdiction 4 (Crim Apeal 368 of 2009) under section 378 of the Cr.P.C. is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion unless the Trial Court has committed a manifest error of law in appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution. 9. After having perusal of the impugned judgment and order, in my view, the Special Judge has given cogent reason while giving the judgment that demand and acceptance had not been proved by the prosecution. It has given the circumstances and reasons why the prosecution case of demand was not established by the prosecution. In my view, there is no infirmity in the said reasoning and, therefore, it would not be possible to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. For the purpose of proving demand, the prosecution examined the Complainant and Pancha Witness -PW-1, apart from the fact that the Complainant has nowhere stated that after he went to the house of the Accused, he had demanded the amount. Secondly, there is a discrepancy in the evidence of the Complainant and the Pancha Witness-PW-1. 10. The Trial Court, in my view, has rightly observed that the prosecution had not established demand of 5 (Crim Apeal 368 of 2009) money by Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even so far as the acceptance of bribe is concerned, the Trial Court after going through the evidence on record, has observed that the explanation given by the Accused that the Complainant had tried to thrust the money on the person of the Accused No.1 appeared to be probable. In my view, the finding recorded by the Trial Court appears to be probable from the material on record. 11. In this view of the matter, no case is made out by the Appellant to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. 12. Appeal by the State is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)