( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2776 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2775 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Jaivant s/o Shivlingrao Khandgaonkar RESPONDENT ..... Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, APP for the applicant/State. Mr. G.P. Shinde, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th October, 2009] PER COURT : 1. These are applications for condonation of delay and for leave to appeal. 2. There is delay of 211 days in filing of the appeal. The explanation given in the application is that after judgement dated 10-10-2008, some work of colouring the office of the Additional Public Prosecutor and placing furniture therein was going on and, therefore, ( 2 ) the file was misplaced. It was found on 6th April, 2009 and thereafter, application for copy was submitted. After obtaining the copies, the proposal was forwarded to the Law and Judiciary Department. The proposal was cleared on 10th June, 2009. The appeal was presented on 7th August, 2009. 3. Heard learned A.P.P. and learned counsel. 4. The application does not show as to for how many days, the colouring work was going on in the office of the Additional Public Prosecutor, Nanded and why copy of the judgement was not applied for immediately after the judgement of acquittal was rendered. The application is not supported by affidavit of any Additional Public Prosecutor to show that the file was missing. How conveniently the file could miss form the office if somebody wants it to be, is not unknown. The lethargy or negligence in the office of the Additional Public Prosecution, Nanded cannot give lee way to the prosecution for condonation of delay. ( 3 ) 5. A Division Bench of this Court in “State of Maharashtra & others v. Vithu Kalya Govari & others” 2008 (4) ALL MR 856, held that such explanation of “procedural hassles” cannot be regarded as sufficient. In “Special Land Acquisition Officer (SIP) and another v. Jose Prazeres DE PIEDADE PINTO r/o OLD MARKET and others” 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 318, it is held that explanation must be satisfactory. 6. Coming to the merits, it transpires that the respondent was Head Master of a Government Ashram School situated at Patoda (Kh.). Allegedly, he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/- from complainant Siddharth Kamble for clearance of the Bill in respect of stitching charges of uniforms provided to the students of school. The respondent allegedly had demanded 10% of the amount of bill i.e. Rs. 2000/-. The complainant did not pay any heed. On 20th March, 2005, the complainant requested the respondent to forward the bill for clearance. The respondent instructed him to give Rs. 2000/- as soon as the bill was passed. Lastly, in the ( 4 ) morning of 24th March, 2005, the complainant was told by the respondent to give Rs. 1000/- or else, letter required for refund of Rs. 1500/- would not be issued. Fed up with the persistent demand, complainant PW Siddharth lodged a report with the Anti Corruption Bureau. A trap was organized. According to the prosecution, on 24th March, 2005, the bribe money was given to the respondent which he accepted. His fingers indicated bluish sparkles when examined under the ultra violet lamp immediately after the trap. The respondent, however, had thrown away the tainted currency notes near a flag pole outside his office. 7. The learned Special Judge noticed that the stitching charges as billed were claimed already before the alleged demand. According to the complainant – PW1 Siddharth Kamble, the demand was made on 20th March, 2005 for the first time. The learned Special Judge noticed that vide letter dated 16-03-2005, the credit bill was already forwarded by the respondent to the concerned authority. Obviously, the respondent had not put any spoke in the process of clearance of the bill for ( 5 ) stitching charges. Ordinarily, hands of a person may be greased with a view to obtain clearance. The bribe amount is ordinarily paid if the work is hindered. Here is a case wherein the bill was already forwarded before about four (4) days of the initial demand. 8. Another important circumstance is that the learned Special Judge noticed that on 24th March, 2005, it was complainant PW Siddharth who had proposed the scheduled day of payment. The respondent had not fixed the time and date. The versions of PW1 Siddharth and PW2 Satish were found inconsistent n the context of the demand and acceptance of the tainted currency notes. The copy of certificate, which was seized by the police, did not bear signature of the respondent. His immediate conduct is also worthy to be noted. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the respondent. He had immediately thrown away the tainted currency notes near the flag pole. His defence was that the complainant attempted to thrust the amount in his pocket and, therefore, he immediately took away the currency notes and flung them away. Considering the ( 6 ) conduct of the respondent and the evidence on record, the impugned judgement of acquittal rendered by the learned Special Judge cannot be faulted with. 9. For the reason aforestated, the application for leave to appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln2776-09