IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1917 OF 2011 THE STATE OF MAH THR. PP VERSUS SHIVAJI NIVRUTTI GUTE ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.N.Kendre. Mr. Salgare h/f Mr. Jadhav Satej S Adv For Respts ... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. Dated: November 24, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-state seeking leave to file appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 8.2.2011, rendered by learned Special Judge, and Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalan, thereby acquitting the respondent i.e. original accused for the offence p/u/s 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 8.2.2011 and Record and Proceeding with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is alleged that accused while serving as Naik police constable in MSEDCL Police Station Mastgad, Jalna, he demanded gratification amount of Rs.500/- for not arresting the complainant under Crime No.151/2009 registered against him at police station MSEDCL, Jalna for theft of electricity under section 135 of Electricity Act. 5. To substantiate the charge levelled against the accused aaa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD prosecution examined in all three witnesses i.e. PW 1 Sunil Vasantrao Kharat- panch witness, PW 2 Vitthal Panditrao Jadhav – complainant and PW 3 Manohar Dhondiram Pagare DYSP ACB Jalna and Investigating Officer. 6. Although the panch witness PW 1 Sunil stated about the demand and acceptance of Rs.500/- by the accused, the PW 2 complainant Vitthal has not corroborated to the same. His evidence is not in consonance with the contents of First Information Report and aspect of alleged demand amounted to material ommission therein. Moreover, it clearly shows that before laying down the trap and before handing over the money by the complainant to the accused, there is no whisper in his deposition that accused made demand of bribe. Hence, it is apparent that, testimony of PW 1 Sunil Kharat panch and deposition of PW 2 Vitthal are not in consonance with each other in respect of very vital aspect of the demand and acceptance of bribe amount and therefore, the learned trial court acquitted the accused rightly for the charges levelled against him. 7. In the circumstances, having comprehensive view of the matter, afater scrutinizing and assessing the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused is a possible view and therefore, same does not appear to be perverse and reasoning adopted therefor also cannot be faulted with and hence, no interference therein is called for in the appellate jurisdiction and therefore, present application deserves to be dismissed. 8. In the result, present application is sans merit is dismissed. Leave to file appeal is refused. R & P be sent back to the concerned court. aaa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) aaa