..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3171 OF 2006 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Harishchandra Vishnupant Doiphode. ..Respondent. ... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the Applicant-State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 25th June, 2008. DATED : 25th June, 2008. DATED : 25th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 20th June, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Special Case No.2 of 2002. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted respondent-orig.accused of the offences under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. ..(2).. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant had preferred an application for bail. The accused who was working as Assistant Public Prosecutor told the complainant that he will not raise objection for grant of bail to the complainant and demanded Rs.15,000/-. It is further the prosecution case that the applicant-accused demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.10,000/-. 3. There is discrepancy in so far as the evidence of the complainant and panch witness is concerned on the point of spot where raid was effected. According to complainant Rajkumar Sawani, he had been along with accused inside the tea stall situated within the premises of the Court where trap was effected. However according to PW-1 and prosecution story, the trap was effected in Ambika Tea House which is located in front of Ulhasnagar Court premises beyond the road. Thus, evidence of both these witness is contradictory on the point of spot itself. This discrepancy raises doubt in the mind. ..(3).. 4. After comparing the evidence of the panch witness and the complainant on the point of demand of gratification other than legal remuneration by the accused to the complainant, their evidence is found to be contradictory to each other. As far as demand is concerned, panch witness PW-1 Vijay Lande has stated that after they went to the hotel, complainant told accused that he was being harassed by the police and the accused should help him. Then complainant told the accused that whether he had brought what was decided and further accused asked if 15 were brought. Thereafter, the complainant told that 10 were settled and he had brought 10. This witness further states that the accused further told that it was alright and suggested to make payment saying that he would help the complainant to obtain bail. He further states that the accused asked complainant to pay previous Rs.1000/- and accordingly, the tainted notes were passed from complainant to the accused. Now, so far as the complainant is concerned, he nowhere states that the accused asked him whether he had brought 15 and he thereafter stated that he has brought only ..(4).. 10 as settled. He also did not state about insistence of accused to pay previous balance of Rs.1000/-. Thus, as far as the demand is concerned also there is no reliable and consistent material on record. 5. As far as sanction is concerned, the authority who granted sanction states that as several authorities had applied their mind accordingly he granted sanction to prosecute the accused. The evidence of the sanctioning authority is not sufficient to show that there was application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. Hence, the sanction cannot be said to be valid sanction. 6. The learned Sessions Judge had taken into consideration all the above aspects as well as the other aspects and thereafter he has acquitted the respondent-orig.accused. 7. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. ..(5).. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.)