(1) CRI.APLN.997.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 997 OF 2010 Prakash Manikrao Dudhate, Age: 47 years, Occu.: Service, As Accounts Officer Class-III, R/o Panchayat Samittee Aundha Nagnath, Tq. Aundha Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. E.P. Sawant, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. None present for respondent no.3 though served. ..... CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J. DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard. 2. The applicant initially prayed for quashing of the FIR no. 3024 of 2009 registered with Aundha Nagnath Police Station, Dist. Hingoli. After filing of the chargesheet, by way of amendment, he has submitted that the chargesheet may also be quashed and set aside to the extent of present applicant. 3. In nutshell, the allegations are that for (2) CRI.APLN.997.2010 the purpose of sanctioning the bill of respondent no.3, the present applicant being Accounts Officer, Class-III has made a demand of 10% of the bill and thereafter through one agent i.e. one Mr. Baheti, had accepted the said bribe. The record shows that during the verification of the complainant, purportedly the conversation between the present applicant and the complainant was recorded. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that at the time of actual trap when allegedly the agent has received the bribe amount, at that time admittedly the applicant was not present. Thereafter during the post-trap panchanama, it was also found that the applicant was not "concerned with the bribe amount" and, therefore, his personal search was not taken under the ultra violet lamp. It was further submitted that earlier various bills of respondent no.3 were rejected and, therefore, aggrieved by the same, the false FIR was filed. 4. The learned A.P.P. submits that prima facie case is made out that the applicant through the agent had received the bribe amount and, therefore, the chargesheet cannot be quashed. (3) CRI.APLN.997.2010 5. Reading of the FIR as well as the copies of the chargesheet presented before this Court by the learned A.P.P. shows that the demand of bribe amount was made and, thereafter through the agent the applicant has received the same. Since the agent was caught red-handed at the time of accepting the amount, naturally the applicant would not come in contact with the said amount and, therefore, his examination under ultra violet lamp was not carried. This prima facie material record itself shows that this is not a case fit for quashing of the chargesheet. 6. In the result, the Criminal Application is dismissed. The above observations are made on the basis of the papers in the chargesheet and should not be understood to have been made finally and the concerned Courts shall decide the matter on its own merit, without influenced by any observations made in this order. Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] arp