1 cri.appln.5470 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5470 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Vinayak Arjun Warekar ... Respondent Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State applicant. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : FEBRUARY 17, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application by the State seeking leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order dated 6th August, 2010 by which Special Judge acquitted respondent of the offences punishable under section 7, 13(1) (d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 23rd July, 2004 an accident had taken place in Ghat Section near Khed between the vehicle belonging to PW 1 and another vehicle. The respondent allegedly demanded sum of Rs. 10,000/­ from P.W 1 in connection with the court proceedings relating to the accident. This demand for Rs.10,000/­ was, after negotiations, settled at Rs.4,000/­. Thereafter, PW 1 complained to the Anti Corruption Bureau regarding the demand made. Pursuant to the complaint, a trap had been laid at police chowki, Khed road on 24th July, 2004 where the respondents had allegedly called PW 1 for payment of the bribe amount. 2 cri.appln.5470 of 2010 It is the evidence of PW 3 that when he visited police chowki at Khed road, on that date the respondent instead accepting the money offered by PW 1 directed that the same be given to PW 3 driver of PW 1. Accordingly the driver was called and the amount was handed over to him. Then the raiding party after receiving the predetermined signal, came on the scene and recovered the money from the person of PW 3. According to PW 1, money was to be handed over to the respondent by PW 3 on the date the parties were to visit the court. The trial court after considering the entire evidence found that the evidence of PW 3 the driver of PW 1 did not inspire confidence regarding the occurrence of the incident. There was nothing stated in the testimony of PW 3 that after acceptance of the bribe money by him, PW 1 went outside the police chowki and gave predetermined signal to the members of the raiding party. The court also found that there was material omission in the evidence of PW 3. Though PW 3 deposed in the court that the bribe amount was handed over as per the directions given by respondent, this fact was not mentioned in his statement recorded by the police. The court found that the prosecution case regarding the alleged :”acceptance of bribe money by the accused from PW 1 Bhagwant” cannot be held as proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The view taken by the trial court is a plausible view. Hence, the application is dismissed. [Judge]