1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2162 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra - APPLICANT (orig.Complainant) VERSUS Ramesh Wasudeorao Shamraj - RESPONDENT ***** Mrs.BR Khekale, APP for Applicant; Mr.SY Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent. ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J. DATE : 2nd August, 2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. Mr.Mahajan, learned Counsel undertakes to file Vakalatnama for respondent in the Registry. 2) This is an application preferred by applicant/State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24th March, 2010 renderered by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (AC) No.11/2009, acquitting the respondent (original accused) for 2 the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 3) I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.3.2010 as well as Record and Proceedings with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties. 4) It is alleged that the respondent was working as an Assistant HO in T.I.L.R. office, Paranda, Tq. Paranda, District Osmanabad at the relevant time, i.e. February 2003. It is further alleged that the complainant, viz. Hausrao Dnyandeo Kadge has made an application in the office of T.I.L.R., Paranda on 11.2.2009 for getting a copy of JMS of Survey No.29, Khandeshwarwadi, Tq. Paranda and met the accused on 14.2.2009 and requested for a copy of JMS from the accused, but the accused demanded Rs.100/- towards the fees and Rs.500/- for himself as illegal gratification. Accordingly, the complainant promised to pay the said amount in the next week, however, the complainant, since he did not want to pay illegal gratification to the accused, filed a complaint, which was recorded by Dy.S.P. Yunus Shaikh of ACB office. Thereafter trap was laid which allegedly was successful and accused was found therein and consequently, the 3 accused faced the trial under Special Case (AC) No. 11/2009. However, after scrutinizing the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the charges levelled against him as stated herein above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 24th March, 2010, the applicant/State has preferred the present application seeking leave to file appeal. 5) To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined inasmuch as five witnesses, viz. - (i) PW 1 – Complainant - Hausrao Dnyandeo Kadge; (ii) PW 2 – Sanjay Ganpatrao Akulwad, panch No.1; (iii)PW 3 - Shailaja Arun Athole, Peon in TILR office; (iv) PW 4 – Dilip Kshirsagar, Dy.Director of Land Records, i.e. Sanctioning authority; (v) PW 5 – Pratap Prabhakarrao Kulkarni, shadow witness of Dy.S.P.- Yunus Shaikh, an Investigating Officer. 6) However, it appears from the record that the complainant – Hausrao Dnyandeo Kadge, was turned hostile to the prosecution, and even did not support the case of the prosecution in the cross-examination. As regards the sanction, the learned Trial Judge has observed that PW 4 – Dilip Kshirsagar, Dy. Director of Land Records, admitted in his deposition that there were two 4 copies of the application of the complainant – Hausrao Kadge submitted in the office of the accused received by him for perusal along with the papers of investigation and there was vast difference in the contents and particulars of those copies of that application. It is also observed that he did not apply mind and verify the cause of difference and consequently indicates that the PW 4 as a Sanctioning Authority, did not shoulder his solemn responsibility and it seriously shakes conscience in accepting that he accorded sanction with application of mind or that the sanction was valid. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge did not find the accused guilty, and consequently, acquitted him from the charges levelled against him. 7) After scrutinizing, analyzing and appreciating the evidence on record, adduced and produced by the prosecution, the view adopted by the learned Trial Judge is a possible view to be adopted and the reasoning given therefor appears to be logical and same cannot be faulted with as well as the view adopted by the learned Trial Judge does not appear to be perverse and, therefore, no interference therein called for, and hence the present application deserves to be rejected. 5 8) In the result, the present application, being sans merits, stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal stands refused. R. and P. be sent back to the concerned Court. (SHRIHARI P.DAVARE) JUDGE bdv/2162.10cran