1 cri appln 2668.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2668 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Kantilal Babulal Pawar .. Respondent Shri S. G Nandedkar, A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. Shri S. W. Munde, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for applicant/State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also other evidence brought on record. He submitted that the respondent/accused did demand an amount of Rs. 500/- to facilitate the complainant to visit and meet his sister inside the jail. The said amount was paid. Same was counted by the accused/respondent. After that he had also written chit mentioning therein that complainant should be 2 cri appln 2668.10 allow to meet the sister. According to the learned A.P.P. all the three requirements i. e. demand, acceptance and recovery has been proved, in this case. Merely because the complainant turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case is not a ground to reject the prosecution case. 2. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, not only that the complainant has turned hostile and did not support the case, however, the other evidence which was brought on record by the prosecution was not sufficient to convict the respondent and, therefore, the Special Court has taken a possible view. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment. 3. Upon hearing learned A.P.P. for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and also upon perusal of the evidence made available it does appear and rather it is admitted position that complainant did not support the prosecution case. The very case of the prosecution was that Rs. 500/- were demanded by the respondent/accused as bribe to allow the complainant to meet his sister inside the jail. The complainant himself has not supported 3 cri appln 2668.10 the prosecution case. The other witnesses on demand have also not specifically stated that, said amount of Rs. 500/- was demanded and paid as bribe to facilitate the complainant to meet his sister who was in jail. 4. The Special Court has elaborately delt with evidence brought on record by the prosecution. In para 29 and 30 has concluded that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the respondent. I have also independently perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution case is that, the amount was counted by the respondent/accused. However, the anthracene powder was found only on the fingers of right hand. If at all amount was counted, it should have been counted by both the hands and there should have been powder on the hands of the accused. That apart, if the chit was written by the accused/respondent, in that case, anthracene powder should have been noticed on the pen and also paper i. e. also not available on record. The prosecution case is that, the amount was accepted as a bribe amount has not been convincingly proved. In absence of complainant's evidence who turned hostile the burden on the prosecution was more to prove the case. However, on the whole it appears that, the evidence 4 cri appln 2668.10 collected by the prosecution has fallen short to convict the respondent. It is well established by the catena of decisions and legal provisions that, if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, benefit should go to the accused. It is also well established that, if the possible view is taken by the Special Court and merely because another view is possible, no ground to interfere in the order of acquittal. 5. In my opinion, the Special Court has taken a possible view. No case is made out. Hence application seeking leave stands rejected. Consequently, there is no question of registration of the appeal. The record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Feb. 11