( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3457 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Eknath s/o. Sahebrao Padul .. Respondent Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the applicant. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 04.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard A.P.P. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi for the applicant/State. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Judge, Special Court, Jalna, in Special Case No. 8 of 2008, decided on 29.06.2009, whereby the respondent/accused is acquitted of offence punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. 2. The learned A.P.P. has taken me through the entire judgment. ( 2 ) 3. Briefly stated, respondent is a police constable. Jeep bearing registration No. MH-26-C-833 belonging to complainant Aziz Shaikh was attached by the respondent/accused in March, 2008. It is stated that respondent demanded Rs. 2500/- for releasing him on bail. Amount of Rs. 2000/- was already paid in presence of Ajmatulla Mirza Baig and remaining amount of Rs. 500/- was to be paid. Then the accused approached Anti-Corruption Bureau. Trap was led and accused respondent was caught while accepting the money. 4. The Trial Court has discussed the evidence in detail. So far as evidence of the complainant is concerned, it is observed that there were inconsistencies between his oral evidence and his statements in complaint. It is further pointed out in para 24 that P.W.1 Shaikh Aziz – complainant did not stick to his story regarding bribe of Rs. 500/- and that is why he had to be declared hostile by the prosecution. In the cross-examination P.W.1-Shaikh Aziz admitted portions marked “A” to “D” pertaining to financial demand and acceptance thereof. Thus, there is question mark on the evidence of the complainant. He was not found to be worthy ( 3 ) to be believed. So far as P.W.2-Ajmatulla is concerned, he did not support the prosecution witness. He was declared hostile. P.W.3-Sunil is panch witness. He supported the prosecution case and the recovery of tainted money was proved. But, it is observed in para 33 that he had not disclosed about conversation between complainant and accused before hint was given by the A.P.P. Reliance was placed on the case of C.M. Girish Baby V/s. C.B.I. Cochin, High Court of Kerala, (2009) 2 S.C.C. (Cri.) 1, to hold that mere recovery of tainted money is not enough when demand and acceptance was not proved. Moreover, it is also found that the accused/respondent was not concerned with the case in hand. 5. After going through the entire judgment, I am of the view that the view taken by the Trial Court is reasonable and proper. When two views are possible, appeal against acquittal must fail. Hence, leave to file appeal against acquittal is rejected. 6. The Criminal Application is dismissed. ( 4 ) [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/cra3457.09