1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2554 OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant. Versus Devidas Natthu Ekhande and another ... Respondents. ... Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for the applicant. Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Respondent No.2 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 14.10.2009. PER COURT 1. This appeal arises out of acquittal rendered in Special Case No.57/2005, for offence U/ss 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Heard learned A.P.P.and learned 2 counsel. 3. The Respondent No.1 is village Talathi and Respondent No.2 is unemployed person who was allegedly working as private assistant of the Respondent No.1 - Talathi at the material time. The complainant Asaram Mali sought mutation entry in respect of a land which was purchased out of Gat No.5. The Respondent No.1 allegedly called upon him to produce a stamp paper of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) filed by him. The Respondent No.1 then demanded Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) for the purpose of mutation of the land in name of the wife of the complainant Asaram. The complainant approached office of the Anti Corruption Bureau, Dhule and reported the incident. A trap was organised. Allegedly, on 4.9.2004, complainant Asaram along with shadow panch visited the premises of the office of the Respondent No.1. It is alleged that the Respondent No.1 instructed the complainant to place the amount on table from where the Respondent No.2 lateron collected the same. 3 4. It appears from the observations in the impugned judgment that complainant Asaram partly supported the complaint but gave some fatal admissions during course of cross-examination. So also there were discrepancies in the statement and the statement of the shadow panch i.e. PW Dinkar Ghodke. It is stated by PW Dinkar that the Respondent No.1 had left the Talathi's office on two occasions, whereas PW 1 Asaram stated that once the Respondent No.1 had left the Talathi's Office, he had not returned to the office on the relevant day. According to PW Dinkar, the Respondent No.1 left the office under pretext of easing of himself and was followed by the Respondent No.2. This sequence of events was not corroborated by PW Asaram (complainant). Not only there were discrepancies in the above witnesses but the amount was not directly accepted by the Respondent No.1 or the Respondent No.2. It was kept on the table and while the Respondent No.2 was lifting the registered for putting them in the cupboard, he noticed the said amount which was picked up by him. It is probable that he had picked up the amount though 4 he was not aware that it was the amount of bribe money and the currency notes were smeared with anthracene powder. In any case, the trial Court has given sufficient reasons so as to reach conclusion that the demand of bribe money and the acceptance thereof has not been proved beyond reasonable realm of doubt. Under the circumstances, leave to appeal is refused. Appeal dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp255409