* 1 * Cri.Appln. 3711.2010 24.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3711 OF 2010 [for leave to Appeal] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 [Against the order of Acquittal] The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant/Orig.Complainant V/S. Jitendra Prabhakar Nikumbha .... Respondent/Orig.Accused * * * * * * Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for the State-applicant. None for the respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 24 February, 2011. P.C. : 1. This application is for leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2011 acquitting the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. * 2 * Cri.Appln. 3711.2010 24.2.2011 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that the brother of the complainant, one Sayyed Majju had taken loan of Rs.80,000/- on 6th August, 2002 from one Sohail Zaiddi to be repaid alongwith interest at the rate of 2% per month. The amount was to be repaid within one month. But, within a couple of days of advancing the loan, Sohail Zaiddi started demanding the loan amount as his friend, Bharatbhai from whom he had arranged for the amount was insisting for its return. On 13th August, 2002 at about 2.00 p.m. Sohail Zaiddi alongwith Bharatbhai visited the shop of Sayyed Majju and demanded the amount. On 21st August, 2002 Bharatbhai repeated the demand and on failure of Sayyed Majju to repay the amount immediately, threatened and abused him through henchmen. They took Sayyed Majju to PSI Navale and Jagdale of Shahu Nagar Police Station. Bharatbhai told something to PSI Navale and left. Thereafter, PSI-Navale inquired with Sayyed Majju about the loan of Rs.80,000/-. On the next day, Sayyed Majju was again called to the police station. There, the respondent who is a police Sub-Inspector, asked Sayyed Majju to return the amount to Bharatbhai amd threatened to implicate him in a serious crime if * 3 * Cri.Appln. 3711.2010 24.2.2011 the amount was not repaid. He also demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant-brother of Sayyed Majju for not arresting him in several cases of cheating. He demanded that the first installment of Rs.15,000/- be paid on 29th August, 2002 between 10.30 to 11.00 a.m. at Shahu Nagar Police Station and the balance amount of Rs.35,000/- to be paid within 3-4 days thereafter. The complainant, then approached Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging that the respondent had demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/- for not taking action in connection with the transaction involving Rs. 80,000/-. The Anti-Corruption Bureau laid a trap and the respondent was caught with the marked currency notes of Rs. 50,000/-. 3. The defence of the respondent was that he was only trying to settle the dispute between the brother of the complainant and Sohail Zaiddi and Bharatbhai. The amount of Rs.50,000/- given to the respondent was to paid to be creditors of Sayyed Majju. The trial Court found substance in this defence for two reasons, firstly, that on the very date and time of the trap, both Sohail Zaiddi and Bharatbhai had visited the police station. Secondly, that the * 4 * Cri.Appln. 3711.2010 24.2.2011 demand of bribe of Rs.50,000/- for not taking action in connection with the loan of Rs.80,000/- was unbelievable. The view taken by the trial Court is a plausible view. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The application for leave to file appeal is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]