..(1).. 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.1969 OF 2006 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Ramchandra Shivappa Koli. ..Respondent. ... Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for the Applicant-State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 25th June, 2008. DATED : 25th June, 2008. DATED : 25th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th December, 2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Malshiras in Special Case No.6 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted respondent-orig.accused of the offences 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 ..(2).. respondent-orig.accused was a police constable attached to Natepute police station. He demanded Rs.10,000/- from Bapu Digambar Markad through one Mahadeo Nana Waghmode for not taking any action against Bapu Markad and others in respect of death of Rani Bapu Markad. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge as well as the record in the present case. 4. The panch witness PW-2 Dilip was told to watch what happens between the complainant and the accused and to disclose all the talks that took place between the complainant and the accused. However, according to PW-2 Dilip he waited outside the building and hence he had no personal knowledge of what the complainant stated and the reply that the complainant got. PW-7 Panse, Dy.S.P. has admitted that the panch did not tell him about the talk between the complainant and the accused. Moreover, it is seen that the relatives of the deceased Rani from both sides have stated ..(3).. before the Dy.S.P. to the effect that they had no complaint about the death of Rani against anybody. In such case, there was no reason for the complainant and other persons to be afraid that crime could be registered against them. The learned Special Judge has taken into consideration the above facts as well as other facts and has observed that the defence taken by the accused appears to be probable, hence he acquitted the respondent-orig.accused. 5. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.)