1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1371 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1370 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- Balkrishna S/o Shankar Toge ..RESPONDENT ......... Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for applicant/State. Mr. U.B. Bondar, advocate for respondent. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 6th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The application is for condonation of delay and another application is seeking leave to appeal. 2. So far as the delay of 18 days is concerned, the explanation given in paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the application would show that the delay was caused due to processing of the proposal for filing of appeal. It appears that the delay is unintentional. The delay is, therefore, condoned by accepting the explanation. 3. Having heard the learned A.P.P. and the learned Advocate for the respondent and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it emerges from the reasons recorded by the Special Judge, that acquittal is rendered due to absence of acceptable 2 evidence on the point of demand of Rs.300/- by the respondent. The respondent is Talathi and allegedly had demanded illegal gratification from the complainant-Vishnu Gyanba Ghule for effecting mutation. The demand was of Rs. 1000/- and after negotiation a part of the illegal gratification to the extent of Rs. 400/- was accepted by the respondent. The remaining part of Rs. 300/- was to be paid on 2nd May, 2005. It was informed to the A.C.B. by the complainant as he had not desires to pay the said amount. Thereafter, the pre-trap panchanama was drawn and a trap was led. 4. It appears that tented currency note of Rs. 300/- were recovered from the appellant. His defence was that the amount was paid by the complainant in lieu of repayment of hand loan, which was advanced to him. It is rather surprising to notice that the defence of the respondent was not accepted by the trial Court. What is observed by the trial Court is that the defence of the respondent was improbable and and it was unbelievable that a false report was lodged against him at A.C.B. Office, Beed to avoid refund of hand loan amount of Rs. 300/-. The learned Special Judge observed that "in other words, neither the case of the case of the prosecution appears believable nor the defence of the accused." Once it is found that the story regarding repayment of 3 Rs. 300/- advanced to the complainant was unbelievable then it goes without saying that there was realm of truth in the allegations that it was towards the part payment of alleged illegal gratification. Otherwise why should the complainant pays the said amount to the respondent on the relevant day ? No other explanation, prima facie, is deducible from the circumstances. Another ground on which the acquittal is rendered is that the sanction letter issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (P.W. 3-Prakash) is not in accordance with law. He narrated before the Special Judge that he was Competent Authority and had perused the record before issuing the sanction letter. The learned Special Judge observed that the status of P.W.-Prakash as a Competent Authority was not duly established. The learned A.P.P. submits that on account of delegation of powers under the circular issued by the Government, P.W. Prakash could be regarded as Competent Authority for the purpose of issuance of sanction to prosecute the respondent. This legal aspect requires consideration. Under the circumstances, leave to appeal is granted. Mr. Bondar waives service for the respondent and as such no action under Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code is called for. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri1371.10