..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.667 OF 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Suresh Arjun Koli. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Applicant-State. Mr.V.V.Purwant, Adv. for the Respondent. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 9th June, 2008. DATED : 9th June, 2008. DATED : 9th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Thane in Special Case No.9 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent-orig. accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent-accused was working as a Talathi in the ..(2).. Talathi Office at Vairag, Taluka-Barshi, District-Solapur. The complainant and his father obtained loan of Rs.60,000/- from the Central Bank of India. Therefore, an entry was made in the 7/12 extract of the land pertaining to the said encumbrance of Rs.60,000/-. The said loan was satisfied by the complainant in July, 2003. Hence the bank had issued no-encumbrance certificate dated 17.7.2003. On the same day, the complainant met respondent-accused in his office at Vairag and handed over the no-encumbrance certificate and requested to delete the entry regarding encumbrance of bank from 7/12 extract. The case of the complainant is that the accused demanded Rs.200/- from the complainant for deleting the entry regarding encumbrance of the bank from the 7/12 extract and the accused asked the complainant to bring the said amount on 23.7.2003. The complainant approached A.C.B.. A trap came to be arranged on 23.7.2003. The raiding party along with panchas went in the office of the respondent-accused. However,it was found that the respondent-accused was absent on that day hence the trap came to be recalled. It is the case of ..(3).. the complainant that thereafter on the very same day i.e. on 23.7.2003 at 5:00 p.m. the accused again demanded Rs.200/- for deleting the entry in the 7/12 extract. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1-orig.accused. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 4. It is the case of the complainant that accused demanded bribe of Rs.200/- from complainant for issuing 7/12 extracts deleting entries regarding bank loan encumbrance on 17.7.2003 and 21.7.2003. According to the complainant the amount was to be handed over to the accused on 23.7.2003. It is pertinent to note that on 23.7.2003 the accused was not found in the office. Hence the trap dated 23.7.2003 arranged against the accused on the basis of aforesaid demand failed and the same was withdrawn by Raiding Officer P.I. Kurundkar. If the accused ..(4).. had called the complainant on 23.7.2003 with the money, the accused would have certainly remained present in the office. Admittedly the trap came to be withdrawn, which fact in the circumstances of the present case raises doubt regarding the veracity of the complainant. 5. Regarding the alleged demand of bribe of Rs.200/- by accused from complainant on 23.7.2003 at about 5:00 to 5:30 p.m. at Vairag and consent of accused for accepting the same on 24.7.2003 in his office at Vairag, in this regard it is the defence of the accused that on 23.7.2003 at about 5:00 p.m. work of taking mutation entry regarding deletion of entries pertaining to bank loan encumbrance from the 7/12 extracts of lands of complainant was already over and accused had issued fresh 7/12 extracts on 23.7.2003 to complainant Hanumant Jambhale before alleged demand of bribe money. Even according to prosecution on 23.7.2003 at about 12:00 noon complainant came to know that accused was out of station and it was not certain as to when the accused would return to Vairag. Therefore the ..(5).. story of prosecution that complainant was asked to stay at Vairag and meet accused again in the evening and the accused demanded fresh 7/12 extracts seems to be concocted. 6. From the facts and circumstances of the case and important document i.e. panchanama Exh.42 prepared by P.I. Kurundkar at ACB Solapur on 23.7.2003 at about 4:00 p.m. it is clear that P.I. Kurundkar had already decided to arrange trap against the accused on 24.7.2003 and accordingly asked both the panchas to attend ACB Solapur at about 6:00 p.m. for the purpose of trap dated 24.7.2003 against accused at Vairag. This panchanama Exh.42 has been admittedly prepared before complainant allegedly informed P.I. Kurundkar on 23.7.2003 that he met accused Suresh Koli at about 5:00 to 5:30 p.m. in his office at Vairag and he demanded fresh 7/12 extracts but accused again demanded bribe of Rs.200/- and agreed to accept the same on 24.7.2003 in his office at Vairag. In view of these facts and the panchanama Exh.42 and defence put forth by the accused that all the documents ..(6).. pertaining to trap dated 24.7.2003 against accused are false and concocted and those documents were prepared by raiding officer P.I. Kurundkar with the help of complainant and panch witness to save himself from giving explanation to his higher authorities regarding failed trap dated 23.7.2003 against accused, the Special Judge could have taken the view, which has been taken by him. In fact, in the present circumstances, I am of the opinion that, whatever evidence placed on record by prosecution regarding so-called successful trap dated 24.7.2003 against accused and recovery of bribe money of Rs.200/- from accused on 24.7.2003 at Vairag is doubtful. 7. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)