1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2128 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- Jaisingh S/o Rupla Rathod ..RESPONDENT ......... Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for applicant Mr. S.B. Joshi, advocate for respondent no.1 ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 14 th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By this application, leave is sought to prefer appeal against the Judgment of acquittal rendered in Special Case No. 6 of 2008. The respondent was tried for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge is against the respondent is that while he was serving as Gram Sevak of village Jambsamarth, demanded Rs. 5,000/- from complainant-Uddhav Laxman Giri, as a illegal gratification, for facilitating the allotment of a house to him, under the Government scheme, called as `Indira Awas Gharkul Scheme'. Allegedly, the complainant negotiated, and therefore, the demand amount was scaled down to Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant gave Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent and remaining amount was to be paid on 06.11.2007. The disgruntled complainant approached the Anti 2 Corruption Bureau, Jalna and lodged a report. A trap was arranged after preparing pre-trap panchanama. The respondent accepted the tainted currency notes of Rs. 1,000/-, which were recovered from his possession soon after a successful trap. 2. The defence of the respondent was that the complainant's brother had obtained hand loan amount of Rs. 2,000/- from him, which had remained unpaid. He submitted that the brother of the complainant had sent one Chitti to him through complainant, whereby the assurance was given to repay the amount within a week. He denied that he had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant and had accepted the part thereof on the day when the trap was led. 3. The learned Special Judge considered the material placed on record and acquitted the respondent of the charges. 4. Heard learned A.P.P. and the learned Advocate for the respondent. 5. The prosecution examined three witnesses including the complainant as P.W. 2. It is important to notice that complainant-P.W.2 Udhav did not support the case of prosecution. 3 He admitted, unequivocally, that the amount of Rs. 2,000/- was obtained by his brother, by name, Kisan Giri, from the respondent by way of hand loan. He further admitted that there were money transaction between the respondent and his family members. He further admitted that the respondent was insisting for repayment of hand loan amount, and therefore, his brother-Kisan Giri, had issued a Chitti to the respondent, whereby assurance was given to repay the amount within 8 days. Secondly, the complainant is the husband of a Member of the Village Panchayat Managing Body. It is obvious that the work of "Indira Awas Scheme" could be within the knowledge of the complainant. It is explicit that ordinarily, such a person, who had access to know the methodology of the scheme provided with shelter to the eligible persons in the village, must have gathered the knowledge that the Gram Sevak had no legal power to accord sanction to the allotment of a house. It was not within the legal authority of the respondent to make such allotment under the said Scheme, considering the fact that the allotment of a house property in the course of implementation of the special scheme was within the domain of Gram Sabha. It is unlikely that for doing such an act or beneficial work required by the complainant, he would have agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent. In the background of the material appearing from the record, the learned Special Judge held that the 4 defence of the respondent is probablised and could be accepted. 6. Assuming that another view is available inspite of hostility of the complainant, the exercise of the Appellate Jurisdiction in such a case, is uncalled for merely on such a ground. No substance is found in the application. Dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri2128.10