1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.742 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2011 (STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PSO, WASHIM //VS// SUBHASH BHAURAO DHONE & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.J.Khan, A.P.P. for Appellant. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 24, 2011. Heard. The State of Maharashtra is seeking leave to file an appeal against order of acquittal dated 13.10.2010 passed by Special Judge, Washim in Special Case No.1 of 2008. Complainant Mahadeorao being a member of backward class approached Maharashtra Other Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation, Mumbai for loan of Rs.1,90,000/- to purchase three wheeler. In that connection respondents No.1 and 2 (original accused Nos. 1 and 2) who were officers working with the said Corporation demanded bribe of Rs.Five Thousand at the time of actual disbursement of the loan. The complainant lodged report with Anti Corruption Bureau and the trap was laid. The respondents were caught red-handed. After investigation the case was filed before the Special Judge. The learned Special Judge found fault with the evidence on the point of demand and acceptance. However, this Court is not convinced on this aspect of the matter. The findings recorded by the learned Special Judge that : 2 “...there is no clear evidence to suggest that accused No.1 at any time shown his willingness to accept the said amount.” It appears that this is dehors the evidence on record. The learned Special Judge further observed that : “... Evidence of P.W. 1 though said to be corroborated through P.W. 2 Gajanan appears to be doubtful because as per the sketch of spot of incident, P.W.4 P.I., Shri Bardekar has admitted that at the relevant time P.W. 2 was standing at a distant place which was near door (sketch Ex.41-A) and therefrom the affairs going inside were not within vision of P.W. 2. Therefore, considering these typical circumstances, it is quite difficult to consider that the accused no.1 had demanded bribe from P.W. 1. ….” This Court does not subscribe to the inference drawn as above. However, the findings of the learned Special Judge on the point of sanction appears to be borne out from the evidence on record and cannot be interfered with. P.W. 3 in his deposition and which also weighed with the learned Special Judge, admitted that the authority to appoint and remove lies with the Board of Directors. The relevant excerpt from the deposition of this witness is reproduced as under : “In our corporation there are directors and out of them, one is Managing Director. I know the rights of Directors. It is true that with previous sanction of Board of directors, Managing Director makes appointment and removal is also done like wise. It is true that about granting sanction, there should be consent of Board of Directors and for that a proposal, is to put before the Board of Directors and thereafter Board of directors give consent. It is true that in sanction order, there is no mention of resolution about the Board of directors. It is true that Managing Director cannot grant sanction himself unless, the sanction is granted by Board of Directors.” 3 In that light of the matter, the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge in paragraphs 33 and 34 are consistent with the record. No case for interference with the order of the learned Special Judge having been made out, leave refused. JUDGE RR..