1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 799/2010 (State of Maharashtra through City Kotwali Police Station, through Anti Corruption Bureau, Akola .vs. Sau. Sindhubai Ajabrao Ooike 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.B. Ahirkar, APP for Applicant/State. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : MARCH 14, 2011 Heard. By this application, the prosecution has sought leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2010 passed by Special Judge-2, Akola in Special Case No. 2/2003 of the said Court acquitting respondent no.1 from commission of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) read with section 13(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and respondent no.2 from commission of offence under Section 109 of IPC. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that the wife of the complainant -Sahebrao PW1 had filed a complaint with the Police alleging that the complainant and his brother-in-law used to harass her under intoxication. The said complaint was sent to Women Redressal Forum, Akola for conciliation. Respondent no. 2 1 was then working as Assistant Sub Inspector with the said forum had issued the summons to the complainant PW1 Sahebrao and he was directed to attend the office of Forum at 11 a.m. on 22.10.2002. Respondent no.2 was then working as a Social Worker and also used to attend the Forum for conciliation purposes. It is the main case of the prosecution that PW1 in pursuance of the summons, attended the office of Forum on 22.10.2002 and contacted respondent no.1 who informed him to wait until arrival of the wife of complainant. PW1 waited up-to 4 p.m. but his wife did not turn up. Thereafter, PW1 contacted respondent no.1 and she asked him to go through the complaint filed by his wife and to give reply. Respondent no.1 asked PW1 to attend the office again on 28.10.2002. PW1 requested respondent no.1 that his brother and his wife were residing separately and hence they had no concern with the allegations levelled in the complaint made by his wife and, therefore, respondent no.1 to drop their names from the complaint. Thereon respondent no.1 told him that he will have to pay certain fees for that purpose and asked respondent no.2 to go along with PW1 outside the office and to see what PW1 has to say. It is the prosecution case that thereon respondent no.2 told PW1 that for deleting the names of four accused persons, he will have to pay Rs.500/- per each accused i.e. Rs.2000/-. PW1 agreed to pay Rs.1500/-. Thereafter PW1 told respondent no.2 that he will come back on 28.10.2002 along with the amount. PW1 reluctant to pay the bribe amount, went to Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged the complaint. On the basis of the said 3 complaint, trap was laid. After successful completion of the said trap and after completion of the investigation, the prosecution was launched against the respondents for commission of the offence for which they were charged at the trial. The prosecution in support of the case has examined complainant Sahebrao PW1, panch no.1 Gopal Kaware -PW2, Kishor Jadhav – PW3, investigating officer Mr. Y.D. Patil- PW4. The careful perusal of the judgment delivered by the trial Court does not reveal that the trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence upon settled principle regarding appreciation of evidence. The reasoning given in paragraph nos. 9 to 14 clearly reveals that the trial Court has come to the conclusion of the prosecution having not establishing of either respondent no.1 or respondent no.2 having demanded the bribe amount. Having regard to the said facets, the trial Court came to the conclusion that defence of respondent no.2 of having accepted the money for the purposes of donation was probable. The reasons given by the trial Court clearly appear to be in consonance with the evidence surfaced on the record during trial. Having regard to the same, the view taken by the trial Court being probable view, no interference with the judgment impugned is called for. Hence leave refused. The application for leave and consequent appeal presented stand dismissed. JUDGE halwai