1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3558 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPLICAITON NO. OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ........Applicant versus Ashok Ravji Utekar ........Respondent. Mr.A.S. Shitole APP for the applicant. None for the Respondent. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 18th February, 2010. P.C.: This is an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. Application is disposed of. 2. Leave to appeal is granted. The appeal is taken up for admission. Office is directed to register the appeal. 3. By the present appeal, the appellant takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Gr. Mumbai dated 29-1-2009 in Sessions Case No. 98/04 acquitting the respondent/ ori. accused for offence punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption act. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant was an advocate who had gone to Dadar Police station wherein the 2 present respondent was working, for taking copies regarding one accident. It is the prosecution case that the accused demanded an amount of Rs.1000/- for giving the said copies, however the said amount was settled to Rs. 700/-. A trap was arranged and the accused was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 5. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submits that since the trap was proved by the prosecution, the learned Judge has erred in acquitting the accused. 6. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned trial court has found that the panchas have turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case in so far as the actual trap is concerned. It has been further found that the evidence of the complainant also was not found to be trust worthy, in as much as it was found that the complainant was a habitual complainant. It has further been found that the sanction which was granted by the sanctioning authority was also not valid in law. 6. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the view of the trial court is perverse or impossible. These are the only grounds on which interference in an appeal against acquittal is permissible. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. (B.R. Gavai, J.)