1 APPLN-752.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.752 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant Vs. Rajendrakumar Mulamchand Jain .... Respondent Shri J.P. Kharge, APP, for the Applicant-State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 P.C: This is an application for leave to file appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ordered by the learned Special Judge, Khed, District Ratnagiri. The accused is supposed to have demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for passing bills of the complainant who was a contractor. The complainant PW-1 Pugaonkar had stated that since a demand for money was made for passing his bills, he had approached the Anti- Corruption Bureau and he had accompanied one 2 APPLN-752.11 panch Dawari, who was examined as PW-2, to the house of the accused. On 26-10-2004 the accused was not at home and his wife opened the door. After about 15-20 minutes the accused came and then they entered in the house of the accused. The complainant states that on his ascertaining about his bill, the accused asked him to pay at least Rs.10,000/-. The complainant then took 2-3 days time to pay this amount. PW-2 Dawari, however, does not state about demand of Rs. 10,000/-. He states that after the complainant asked the accused about his bill, the accused stated that it will be okay and asked as to what happened about his demand, whereupon the complainant is stated to have told that he would pay the amount as and when he would get it. On 28-10-2004 when the raid was conducted, according to the first informant, the accused asked the complainant whether he had brought the bribe amount and then asked the complainant to keep the same on the wooden plank on which a telephone instrument was kept and he accordingly kept the amount on the wooden plank from where it was eventually seized. The complainant had stated in his examination-in- chief that since the predecessor of the accused had not given dues of Rs.50/- lakhs till he paid bribe, he was sure that only if he paid 3 APPLN-752.11 bribe to the accused, the accused would pass the bills. PW-2 Dawari stated that on the day of the trap, the complainant himself told the accused that he had brought Rs.10,000/- and asked the accused as to what should he do with the amount, whereupon the accused is supposed to have told the complainant to keep the amount near the telephone instrument. Considering this, the learned Judge held that the evidence about demand was discrepant and therefore acquitted the accused. It cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Judge is perverse or improper. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)