cran1751.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1751 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Beed ...Applicant Versus Charan s/o Harji Pawar Age 39 years, Occ. Service (Civil Engineering Assistant Class-III) Panchayat Samiti, Georai, Tq. Georai, District Beed ...Respondent ..... Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the applicant-State Ms Deshmukh, advocate h/f Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 4th FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant-State and learned counsel for the respondent. The State has preferred this application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.1.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, and Special Judge, Beed in Special Case No. 50 of 2004 thereby acquitting the respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) r.w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of cran1751.10 -2- Corruption Act. 2 It is the case of the prosecution that the Anti Corruption Bureau from Beed prosecuted the accused-respondent herein with allegations that he being Civil Engineering Assistant at Panchayat Samiti, Georai and being a public servant, firstly on 23.6.2004, then on 30.6.2004 did demand of Rs.1,000/-, then it was settled to Rs.500/- which was repeated on 14.7.2004 as a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward from complainant Anil Ramchandra Sasane for doing an act of forwarding a proposal of allotment of Government house (Gharkul) under Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojana (Entire Rural Employment Scheme) on the name of his wife Sau. Shobha; and on agreement to accept Rs.500/- on 15.7.2004 at 1.00 p.m. in Panchayat Samiti Office at Georai, did demand and accept the same from complainant and thus, there was demand and acceptance of bribe, which was a criminal misconduct, punishable under section 7 and 13(1) (d) r.w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3 Learned A.P.P. appearing of the applicant-State submitted that the prosecution has proved demand, acceptance and recovery. The panch witness was examined, however, the trial court without appreciating the evidence brought on record has acquitted the respondent-accused. Therefore, learned A.P.P. would submit that this cran1751.10 -3- matter requires consideration. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the alleged work for which the alleged demand stated by the prospection does not come under the duties of the respondent. He has no authority to sanction any Gharkul to the respondent. The possible defence was taken by the respondent that when he was busy in the work at his table in his office, somebody came behind him and inserted some notes into his shirt’s left side chest pocket. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged demand is not proved by the prosecution. There is no any corroboration to the evidence of the complainant. This court may not interfere in the impugned judgment. 5 Upon hearing learned A.P.P. for the applicant-State and learned counsel for the respondent and upon perusal of the impugned judgment, record and proceedings made available, it does appear that the complainant himself has stated that he himself has kept the amount in the pocket of the accused. The trial court in para 32 has observed that the amount being found in shirt’s left side chest pocket of the accused and complainant’s presence to that site being admitted fact, possibility of complainant’s approach to insert amount in the shirt’s left site pocket of accused cannot be ruled out and that fact cran1751.10 -4- being admitted by the complainant himself, evidence of P.W.2 Anil though found consistent to the contents of panchnama No.2, came under conflicts. Therefore, the prosecution case itself is that the amount was inserted in the left pocket of the shirt of the accused. So far initial demand is concerned, evidence of the complainant is not supported by any other independent witness. It is undisputed position that the accused respondent had no authority to sanction Gharkul to the complainant. The trial court has considered entire evidence on record and recorded that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution not only falls short on the point of demand but even on the point of acceptance of amount by the accused. In my opinion, the possible view has been taken by the trial court. It has also come on record that unless there was recognition of some Panchayat Samiti or Zilla Parishad Member, office would not prepare to send the proposal to competent authority for sanction. This claim of the accused even admitted by the complainant, which was repeatedly brought on record by the defence counsel during the course of cross examination of the witnesses. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, no case for interference is warranted. Hence, this application seeking leave to prefer appeal stands rejected. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/ cran1751.10 -5-