1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 1090 OF 2008 IN CRI.APPEAL NO.524 OF 2008. (STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TH.PSO DHARNI VS. NARAYAN BONDRAJI SIRSAT & ANR.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri D.B.Patel, A.P.P. for applicant. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JANUARY 23, 2009. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Special Judge, Achalpur, whereby he acquitted both the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the judgment. 3. Respondent No.1 is Senior Clerk, who was supposed to prepare a bill for arrears of salary of the complainant, who was serving in the same office as a clerk. Respondent No.1 had 2 allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.One Thousand for doing this work. The complainant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, a trap was laid, the amount was paid by the complainant to respondent No.2 Sanju Hotelwala at the instance of respondent No.1 Senior Clerk. 4. The learned Special Judge rejected this evidence on the ground that the evidence about second demand was discrepant. While the complainant had stated that second demand by respondent No.1 Narayan was made in the office itself, panch Subhash Gulhane did not state of this demand in the office. He state that second demand was made in the hotel. While the complainant stated that the accused accompanied him in the hotel, panch stated that the accused came after 15 to 20 minutes. Apart from this, the learned Special Judge had observed that the complainant admitted in his cross- examination that his friend had told the complainant that if the complainant gave a report of accused No.1 in Anti Corruption Bureau, Amravati he would get arrears soon. He admitted that the A.C.B. Officer also told him that he would get the arrears on 3 signing a report. He also admitted that accused No.1 had not made any demand from him from the date of his applying for receiving the arrears till he reached the Anti Corruption Bureau office. 5. In view of this, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be untenable or erroneous, warranting grant of leave to file appeal against acquittal. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. JUDGE RR.