1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1420 OF 2008. IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.293 OF 2008. The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant. Versus Prakash Narayansing Raghuwanshi. ... Respondent. ... Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the applicant. Mr.K.C.Sant, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 30.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. Leave to appeal is sought by the State. 3. The Respondent came to be acquitted for offence punishable U/s 7, 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Respondent was tried before the 2 learned Special Judge, Jalgaon, in Special Case No.1/2004. 4. The Respondent is a Medical Officer of Cottage Hospital, Parola. Allegedly, wife of the complainant Gulab Girase (P.W.1) had received head injury during course of an assault mounted on her on June 16, 2003. She was taken to the Cottage Hospital, Parola. It was alleged that the Respondent had demanded fees for issuance of Medico Legal Certificate. The complainant requested for issuance of fitness Certificate as he was required to remain absent from duty. Allegedly, an amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) was demanded and was accepted by the Respondent towards illegal gratification. 5. The learned Special Judge, held that there were discrepancies in the statement of the complainant and panch witness (P.W.2). He noticed that fitness Certificate was not actually required. The evidence tendered before the learned Special Judge, however, indicated that the amount of tainted currency notes was 3 recovered from pocket of the Safari shirt of the Respondent. The fingers of his hands were also to bear bluish glaze of anthracene powder. The Respondent did not immediately offer any explanation regarding the amount which was found on his person. The defence of the Respondent was put forth, subsequently, during the trial. It is essential, therefore, to examine whether the defence is acceptable or was after thought. The learned Special Judge did not appropriately discussed the impact of Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The acquittal of the Respondent is required to be therefore, examined in view of the attending circumstances and the evidence placed on record, particularly, in view of the presumption available U/s 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, this is a fit case in which leave to appeal is required to be granted. It may be mentioned that learned advocate Mr.Sant, invited my attention to "State of Maharashtra Vs. Nanasaheb Bhikaji Tambe and others" 1992 Mh.L.J.1539. The Division Bench considered the issue regarding categories in which appeal against order of acquittal may be 4 permissible. In my opinion, the present case is one in which such appeal needs to be entertained. Leave to appeal is granted. 6. Admit. 7. Mr.K.C.Sant, learned advocate waives service for the Respondent. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp142008