( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 381 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Dnyanoba s/o Kisanrao Shingire RESPONDENT .... Smt. B.R. Khekale, APP for the applicant/State. Smt. S.S. Jadhav, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3 rd September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application seeking leave to appeal against judgement and order of acquittal rendered by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No. 1/2006 for offence punishable under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard learned APP and learned counsel. 3. The respondent was attached to Shirur Anantpal Police Station as Police Sub Inspector at the relevant time. ( 2 ) Allegedly, the informant Shaikh Ahmed Hamaza was apprehending his arrest in connection with crime which was registered against him. He had paid certain amount to the respondent so as to elude the arrest. According to him, the respondent demanded Rs. 2000/- from him on 31st July, 2005 in presence of his friend by name Dilip Goroba Banate for committing omission to send chargesheet against him. Allegedly, a trap was laid after lodging of the FIR by the informant with the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.), Latur. On 3rd August, 2005, the respondent is said to have accepted the tainted currency notes in the premises of the Police Station at Shirur-Anantpal. The learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent mainly for the reason that first demand was not proved because PW Dilip Banate had turned hostile. The informant himself partly had supported the respondent during course of cross-examination. Still, however, trap panch by name Yelikar supported the case of prosecution. The respondent was found in possession of the tainted currency notes immediately after he was caught hold up by the officials of the A.C.B. after signal from the informant was received about giving of tainted currency notes to the respondent. The evidence tendered by the prosecution is required to be re-appreciated in the given circumstances. Consequently, the leave to appeal is granted. The learned ( 3 ) advocate for the respondent waives service for the respondent and as such, no action under section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code is called for. The application is accordingly disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln381-2009