1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 451/2011 State of Maharashtra, thr. Anti Corruption Bureau, Amravati ..vs.. Sudhir Gopalrao Ambadkar & ors. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. V. A. Thakre, A. P. P. for appellant. Mr. C. B. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. R. K. Dhaude, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 30, 2011. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an appeal by State against the judgment and order dated 16.07.2010 passed by Special Judge, Amravati in Special Case No. 4/2006 against accused nos. 1 and 2 (Respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein). Both the accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The complainant-Sanjay Nemade had passed 10th standard examination from Board of Secondary School Education, Amravati in the year 1988-89. He was in need of duplicate mark-sheet. Therefore, he approached office of the Secondary School Certificate Board on 26.08.2005 and applied for duplicate mark-sheet. He deposited Rs. 200/-. Since it was found that the mark-sheet for which he had applied pertain to the period of ten years old, an additional fees was demanded. Snajay Nemade approached Anti Corruption Bureau on 01.09.2005 alleging that the accused persons were asking for a bribe. 2 4. PW 2-Jagannath in his cross-examination stated as follows: “It is true that accused No.2 was asked to give his explanation in writing and he gave in writing his explanation. I had read over his explanation. In his explanation he had stated that complainant told him that he wanted to deposit fees and therefore, he went to the counter but the counter was closed. Accused No.2 has stated in his explanation complainant told him whether he could accept the fee then accused No.2 told that fees is to be deposited.” 5. There is an evidence of PW3 Ram Shidhape. He clarified that if mark-sheet is 10 years old, double the fees is charged. The learned Special Judge, considering the evidence, in para 34 observed as follows: “34. It is also brought on record from cross- examination of PW-2 that accused no.2 in his explanation had stated that complainant told that he wanted to deposit fees and therefore, he went to the counter, but the counter was closed and hence, on the request of complainant, he accepted the said amount to be deposited with the counter. This admission itself, falsifies and washed out prosecution case about demand of amount as bribe and its acceptance as a bribe rather, rather amount demanded was towards additional charges, which were about to deposit in the cash counter but since, it was closed due to lunch hours, the accused no.2 accepted it for onward depositing.” 3 6. This is a case where two views are possible. This being the case against acquittal, the question of substituting the other view for the possible view taken by the trial Court does not arise. In that light of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal. Leave refused. JUDGE kahale