1 cri appln 1129.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1129 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Udaysing Chandrasingh Suryawanshi .. Respondent Shri , A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. Shri K. C. Sant, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 25TH JANUARY, 2011. PER COURT : . This application is filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking leave to file appeal from the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.11.2009 passed by the Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No. 08/2006. 2. It is the case of the applicant/State that, complainant Prakash Patil and his brother Kailash Patil are the owners of plot No. 9 and 10 situated at village Bramhan Shevga. The gram 2 cri appln 1129.10 panchayat started construction work of village roads. It is the case of the applicant that, the road of gram panchayat was shown going through the property of Mr. Prakash Patil and, therefore, he went to the office of Taluka Inspector Land Record on 06.01.2005. They met the respondent who is alleged accused Udaysing Suryawanshi in the said office. It is the case of the prosecution that, accused demanded Rs. 500/- for immediate measurement of his plot. Therefore, on 03 rd February, 2005, the complainant went to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon. The Anti Corruption Bureau arranged trap and caught hold the respondent for accepting amount from the complainant. However, the Trial Court acquitted accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence this application is filed by the applicant/State of Maharashtra. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the facts and evidence on record. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that, from perusal of the evidence on record it clear that, accused being a Taluka Inspector of Land Record, demanded Rs. 500/- from the complainant for immediate measurement of his plot. The learned trial Court has 3 cri appln 1129.10 not appreciated and considered cogent, consistent evidence of P.W. No. 2, complainant and P.W. 3 Shantaram Ubale and P.W. 4 Police Inspector Mahajan. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that, the respondent has demanded Rs. 500/- and consequences of the acceptance of bribe by the accused in not considered by the Trial Court. There is corroboration in the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. would submit that, this application requires consideration. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove demand, acceptance and recovery and, therefore, taking into consideration entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the respondent/accused is acquitted by the Special Court. Therefore, no interference is warranted in this application. 5. Upon hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and also record and proceedings, I am of the opinion that, the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to hold that, the respondent herein has committed offence U/Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is admitted position that, the tented currency 4 cri appln 1129.10 notes were found on the table of the accused. Accused did not touch those notes. No anthracene powder was seen on his hands. Not only this, he has given explanation as to how and under what circumstances tented currency notes were found on his table. Therefore, in such cases, initial demand assumes importance. Admittedly, the prosecution has not examined Kailash Patil. It is the prosecution case that, when the complainant went to the office of T. I. L. R. and met the respondent/accused at that time he demanded Rs. 500/- for early measurement. The Kailash Patil was accompanying Prakash, however, Kailash is not examined. Therefore, the prosecution is not able to prove that, the accused/respondent has accepted amount and to that effect anthracene powder was seen on his hands and in that case the evidence of the complainant in respect of initial demand is sufficient. However, when the currency notes were found on the table of the accused and accused did not touch those notes and no anthracene power is seen on his hand, in this background initial demand of gratification assumes importance. In this case, there is no corroboration to the statement of complainant, that there was initial demand by the accused/respondent of Rs. 500/- on 01 st February, 2005. Apart from this the Special Court on appreciation of evidence of the prosecution witnesses in para 21 has observed that, the evidence of P.W. 2 Narayan Baviskar on 5 cri appln 1129.10 the point of actual conversation between complainant and accused varies with the complainant. Taking into consideration evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the Special Court found that, the prosecution has not proved it’s case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent/accused, in my opinion viewed from any angle and on reading the evidence of the witnesses, the Special Court has taken possible view. No interference is called for. Hence application is rejected. Leave to file appeal is refused. Consequently, registration of the appeal is refused. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Jan. 11