1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No.1825 of 2009 with Cri.Application No.1824/2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. Heard. 2. None for the Respondent. 3. There is delay of four (4) days. The delay is apparently unintentional and is attributable to the official difficulties as stated in the application. Consequently, the delay is condoned. 4. So far as application seeking leave to appeal is concerned, it may be gathered from the impugned judgment that the Respondent was allegedly trapped for accepting tainted currency notes of Rs.500/-. He was working as Head constable attached to the Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded. It appears from the impugned judgment that originally a trap was arranged in the premises of Bhagyanagar Police Station or in a hotel called "Mama Hotel" situated opposite to the Police Station. However, that first trap failed. The learned Special Judge held that though the versions of complainant and shadow panch disclosed that the trap had failed and they had returned to the ACB Office, yet, P.W. 4 Satish, Dy. S.P.(ACB), denied such event. There was no separate panchanama drawn regarding failure of the first trap and shifting of the second trap after the complainant and shadow panch returned from Mama Hotel. The Respondent placed on record receipt dated 13.8.2006 which indicated that complainant P.W. Vishwas had obtained a hand loan of Rs.500/- from him. The receipt was duly corroborated during cross-examination of P.W. Vishwas. The learned Special Judge noticed that at both the times of the trap, i.e. first failure and the second alleged successful, complainant P.W. Vishwas had contacted the Respondent on telephone through call from a coin box. Thus, the Respondent was invited at the place. In this view of the matter, the learned Special Judge was right in holding that benefit of reasonable doubt could be given to the Respondent. No serious infirmity is noticed from the impugned judgment. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.28.08.2009. asp/office/Crapp1825.09