1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1775 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra. Applicant. V e s u s Giridhar Genu Zarekar, Respondent. Mr. N.N. Jadhav, APP for the State. Shri P.S. Shinde h/f Smt. Sadhana Jadhav for respondent. CORAM : V R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 27 th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. Heard. 2- Prosecution came up with a case that the complainant Bhausaheb Thorat was working as teacher in Government aided school at Kopargaon. One Smt. Waghmare was also working like wise with him in the school as Shikshan Sevak. Both of them were confirmed in service. With the result, their consolidated pay of Rs.3,000/- was hiked to Rs.7,100/- p.m. The regular bills for difference of pay were drawn by 2 the head master and were submitted to the pay Unit Office. The respondent is employee of Provident Fund office through whom the bills were to be enrouted. He demanded Rs.2,000/- each from the school teachers for processing of the bills. Therefore, the complainant filed a report with Anti Corruption Bureau. A trap was arranged. The respondent allegedly asked the complainant to put the amount of Rs. 2,000/- on a paper which was placed in the drawer of the table. 3. The learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent for the reasons discussed in paragraph No.18 to 20 of the impugned judgment. First, the recovery of the tainted currency notes was not effected from the person of the respondent. His fingers or clothes were not found to bear the marks of anthracene powder. The amount was kept on a paper on the table. The panch witness stated that the complainant himself informed the respondent that the money was brought by him. The version of the panch witness is to the effect that, the respondent gave him one paper and instructed to keep money on that paper. Said paper was pushed in the empty space between the 3 drawer and table. In other words, the respondent did not place that paper along with money in the drawer. More over, the earlier demand of Rs.2,000/- each was not directly communicated to the complainant but it was communicated to Head master Shri Naidu. Prosecution did not examine Head master Shri Naidu in support of the first demand made by the respondent. In the circumstances and in view of material discrepancy noticed from the version of the complainant and panch witness, the respondent came to be acquitted. There appears hardly any error committed by the learned Special Judge while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 4. In the result, leave is refused. Appeal dismissed. ( V. R. KINGAONKAR, J. ) ..... aaa/1775.08