1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 22/2011 (State of Maharashtra through Anti Corruption Bureau Unit, Nagpur. .vs. Vishnu s/o Somaji Talmale and another) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for Appellant/State. Mr. C.M. Munje, Advocate for Respondents. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : MARCH 31, 2011 Heard. By the present application, the State of Maharashtra has sought leave under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. for preferring an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.6.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB/CBI) Nagpur under Prevention of Corruption Act in Special (ACB) Case No. 22/2003 acquitting respondent no.1 from commission of offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and respondent no.2 from commission of offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In short it is the prosecution case that respondent no.2 is the wife of respondent no.1 and during the period from June, 1978 to August,1982 respondent no.1 was holding the post of Gramsevak 2 in the office of Panchayat Samiti Gondia. He was promoted and worked as Agriculture Supervisor during the period from August, 1982 to May,2002. An inquiry was conducted against him and PW7 Dy S.P. Jabbar Khan submitted report to the Director and sought permission for lodging FIR and in pursuance of permission received, lodged complaint Exh.222 on 22.5.2002 against both respondents at Kotwali Police Station, Nagpur. As a result of investigation of the same, the respondents were charge sheeted by A.C.B. and, therefore, tried by learned Special Judge (ACB/CBI) Nagpur for the offences for which they were acquitted by trial Court. In short it is the gravamen of charge against respondent no.1 that he was found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.38,86,811/- disproportionate to his income and thereby committed such offence and respondent no.2 abetted the same. The prosecution in support of case, examined in all seven witnesses i.e. PW1 Anandrao Harde, PW2 Suresh Sathwane, PW3 Ishwar Ambadaire, PW4 Dilip Fulekar, PW5 Purushottam Raut, PW6 Laxman Pidhekar and PW7 Dy. S.P. Jabbar Imam Khan. The respondent in support of his defence, examined three witnesses i.e. DW1 Pandurang Funde, DW2 Vishnu Talmale and DW3 Purushottam Talmale. The trial Court, after assessment of the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the sanction order Exh.210 produced by the prosecution for prosecution of respondent no.1 for offence of 3 criminal misconduct was not legal and valid. It also came to the conclusion of prosecution having not proved that respondent no.1, during the period of his office from June 1978 to May 2002, was found in his possession and in possession of his wife assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs.38,86,811/- to his known source of income. The trial court also came to the conclusion of respondent no.2 having not abetted respondent no.1 to amass and keep in his possession the property disproportionate to his known source of income. The perusal of the judgment delivered by the trial court and particularly the reasoning given in paragraph no.15 to 22 regarding the sanction accorded being not proper, it is difficult to accept any grievance about the said aspect as tried to be canvassed by learned APP. The same is obvious even upon the apparent consideration of the reasons given by the trial court for arriving the same being not legal and valid. The same is the case regarding the findings arrived by the trial court regarding the other aspects. The reasoning given by the trial court regarding relevant respect in paragraph no.37 is self eloquent. The view taken by the trial court examined in light of the evidence on the record cannot be said to be not probable warranting interference by this court. The learned APP had not at all pointed out any matter either from the judgment or the evidence adduced warranting interference with presumption of innocence of the 4 respondents strengthen by the order of acquittal passed by the trial court after assessment of the evidence surfaced at trial. Needless to add that finding arrived by the trial Court about respondent no.1 having rebutted the entire burden by adducing documentary and oral evidence on the record and/or the prosecution having not able to shatter his evidence during the cross-examination effected and so also the further finding based thereon arrived also cannot be faulted. Thus, the prosecution has not made out a case for considering whether interference is required and as such for grant of leave. Leave refused. The appeal consequently presented stands dismissed. JUDGE halwai