1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1310 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1106 OF 2009 Suhas Vasant Belsare .. Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Applicant. Mrs. A. A. Mane APP for the Respondent State. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 17th December, 2009. P.C. 1. The applicant has applied for being released on bail pending this appeal. He has been convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act upon a trap laid and amount recovered from his person. The applicant was an employee of MTNL. He had admittedly received Rs.15,000/- from the complainant. The recovery has been made from him. He has to explain the recovery. 2. He has sought to explain the amount recovered from him stating that, that was the return of the loan granted by him to the complainant’s father, since deceased. 2 3. The complainant’s mother was MTNL employee. The complainant’s father used to come to receive the retiral benefits of his wife. The complainant also went to MTNL office and met the applicant to receive the retiral benefits of her mother. 4. The applicant’s statement in the departmental inquiry, which runs into several pages in number shows that he took pity on the husband of the deceased MTNL employee who had to come again and again to receive benefits. He had requested a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant. The complainant gave him Rs. 10,000/- and his colleague gave him Rs.5,000/-. He later expired. The applicant sought to recover it from the complainant who received two cheques and was to receive further amount. 5. It has to be seen whether this statement is at all probable. Thousands of MTNL employees expire. They are entitled to receive retiral benefits. The employees in a particular department are required to work to disburse retiral benefits. Such employees can expedite disbursement. The disbursement in this case was not expedited. The retiral benefits were not paid to the husband of the deceased employee during his life-time also. This 3 is the case of an employee who went out of his own pocket to give a loan to a stranger without a receipt. His explanation has been rightly discarded as improbable. 6. He has been removed from service in the departmental inquiry. He has been convicted by the Sessions Court and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 2 years. 7. Mr. Kulkarni on behalf of the applicant went through in detail the depositions of various witnesses in the departmental inquiry to show certain inconsistencies. The depositions of the complainant and her uncle and her aunt are shown to me. No material difference is seen on the aspect of demand. Immaterial inconsistencies are with regard to the language of the demand, the time of demand and the persons present at the scene of demand. Contradictions in the statement of the complainant in the departmental inquiry and the deposition before the Court sought to be shown are misconceived. The essential argument is inconsistency in the place (venue) of the demand. Her evidence in the departmental inquiry shows that the demand was made in the office premises of the applicant. Para 13 of the deposition shows 4 that she was waiting outside the office as per the instructions of the applicant. That deposition does not show that the demand was made outside the office. The two depositions show that she was initially made to wait outside the office of the applicant. Thereafter the applicant could call her in his office premises and thereafter make the demand. The two depositions do not show contradictions. 8. The inquiry officer as well as the Sessions Court have recorded and considered the evidence. This Court has also considered the evidence. No contradictions have seen. The applicant has undergone custody of three days. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two years. The appeal has been recently filed. Mr. Kulkarni applies for bail on the ground that the bail will not be taken up for hearing. There is no amount of sentence already undergone. No case for bail is made out. The interim bail is not extended. The applicant shall forthwith surrender. 9. The bail application is rejected. ( R. S. DALVI, J. )