( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 557 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Arun Narayan Shimpi RESPONDENT .... Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the applicant/State. Mr. B.R. Kedar, advocate for the respondent. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 3rd September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The application is for leave to appeal against judgement of acquittal, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No. 1/2007. 3. The respondent allegedly demanded Rs. 500/- from one Shamsing Supdu Patil (complainant) for issuance of certificate under section 32 (M) of the Tenancy Act. He allegedly accepted the amount on the day of the incident, when the trap ( 2 ) was arranged. The defence of the respondent was that he had not demanded any amount from the complainant and that the amount was accepted towards the saving certificate to be issued under a scheme as per directions of the higher authorities. 4. Having heard learned APP and learned counsel for the respondent and on perusal of the impugned judgement, it is explicit that the complainant had given challan to the respondent alongwith the money. The challan was to be submitted to the Treasury when the amount was to be deposited. It was found by the trial Court that the certificate required to be issued to the complainant was not at all in the custody of the respondent. It has come on record that the certificate was to be issued by the Naib Tahsildar. It is important to notice that after the trap was laid, subsequently Naib Tahsildar was called and had delivered the certificate under section 32 (M) of the Tenancy Act. The defence witness by name Rajendra Yadnik supported the case of the respondent. His version purports to show that the complainant was frequent visitor to the Tahsil Office at Bodwad. The learned Special Judge seems to have duly considered the attending circumstances and the defence version, which is corroborated ( 3 ) by the defence witness. The mere acceptance of the money by the respondent could not be regarded as sufficient ground to infer that he had demanded the said amount as illegal gratification. The impugned judgement does not suffer from prima facie patent error as such. Consequently, leave to appeal is refused. The application is dismissed. The appeal be deemed as dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln557-2009