[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1559 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Krishna Piraji Dhawale ..Respondent ... Mr.K.V.Saste APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 10, 2008 DATE : JUNE 10, 2008 DATE : JUNE 10, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.12.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (under P.C.Act) Pune in Special Case No.18 of 2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was a Gramsevak/Village Development Officer of the [-2-] village Narhe-Dhayari. The complainant used to do work of plumbing and the contract work of plumbing of Narhe Gram Panchayat was given to him. The payment for the said work was made by cheques. The said work was for Rs.20,000/-. It is not disputed that the accused gave cheques of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5000/- and the last cheque was Rs.3890/- by deducting the amount of Rs.1100/-. Thus the complainant received the entire amount as per the terms of the contract. The case of the complainant is that when the last cheque was handed over, the accused demanded Rs.1600/- from the complainant. Hence, complaint came to be filed. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 4. In the present case, it is seen that there was no demand of any amount by the accused till the entire payment was made by the accused to the complainant. This conduct of the accused shows that he has not demanded any bribe to do any work. The defence of the accused is that because of the [-3-] report of the accused, complainant suffered loss and hence, the complainant falsely involved the accused in the case. The complainant had laid the pipeline. However, the accused had asked the complainant to change the pipes as the pipes were of low quality. It is an admitted fact that a report about low quality of pipes was given by the accused. The complainant has admitted that he was required to change the pipeline as insisted by the accused and hence, because of that, he suffered loss. 5. It has come on record that last 10 to 12 years, complainant was doing the work of plumbing. Gram Panchayat used to issue cheques of the work done by the complainant. Complainant has admitted that accused gave bills of minor work of the Gram Panchayat and on all those occasions, accused did not demand money to the complainant. The complainant has even admitted that the accused gave three cheques to him in respect of the said work of Rs.20,000/- and obtained signature of the complainant on vouchers, however, the accused did not demand money even at the time of giving those three cheques. It is material to note that even in [-4-] the complaint (Exh.44) it is mentioned that in August, 2002 complainant completed the said work of plumbing and in the month of August itself two cheques of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- were given by the accused to the complainant. It is also mentioned in the complaint itself that on 13.9.2002 when the complainant went to the accused and asked for remaining amount of the bill, a cheque of Rs.3890/- was given by the accused to the complainant. Thus, even from the complaint itself, it is clear that payment of the work done by the complainant was made by the accused by issuing three cheques on three different occasions, however, there was no demand of any amount while giving those three cheques. By way of three cheques, full and final settlement of the contract in question was made. Thus, conduct of the accused is very material for consideration. The reason is that if really accused was interested to obtain bribe amount, he would have demanded and obtained bribe before issuing cheques or at least before issuing the last cheque. However, without any demand being made, the accused gave three cheques on three different dates to the complainant. From the evidence on record, the defence of the accused [-5-] appears to be probable. 6. After going through the entire evidence, I find that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]