1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4532/2009 The State of Maharashtra Applicant V E R S U S Soma s/o Bhila Barse and another. Respondents. Shri S.D. Kaldate, APP for applicant. Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 2 nd AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-state seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.8.2009 passed by learned Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Jalgaon in Spl. Case No.11/2007, acquitting respondents/accused for the offences under sections 7 & 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2 3. It is alleged that respondent No.1 was working as Talathi, who allegedly demanded illegal gratification amount of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant to enter name of complainant and his brother on the portion of plot No.25 and respondent no.2/accused No.2 accepted the said bribe amount from the complainant on behalf of accused No.1, therefor. 4. Prosecution has examined in as much as four witnesses i.e. PW 1 Bahadur Pathan - complainant , PW 2 Shamim Ahmad – panch, PW 3 Mr. Gopal Dandage S.D.O and PW 4 P.I. Ghuge Investigating Officer. However, after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial judge observed in the impugned judgment that the PW 1 Bahadur Pathan - complainant turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and did not support the prosecution case even in the cross examination. Moreover, allegedly trap was laid on 26.4.2007 and it is also alleged that on the previous dates i.e. on 23.4.2007 and 24.4.2007, demand of illegal gratification amount was made by accused from complainant. The accused examined two defence witnesses namely DW 1 Maharu Ahire and DW 2 Pratapsing Rathod and brought on record that accused No.1 was on leave for three days i.e. from 23.4.2007 to 25.4.2007, and, therefore he was not 3 expected to attend his office on said dates and therefore doubt is created in respect of the previous demand and genuineness of the complaint. 5. Moreover, as regards evidence of PW 2 Panch witness it is observed that, it does not show as to for what purpose an amount of Rs.1,000/- was demanded. However, it neither reflects that the demand of money was towards illegal gratification nor discloses that accused No.1 made such demand for recording the names of the complainant and his brother against the plot and there was no conversation between the accused No.1 and complainant for doing any such work of the complainant. 6. Besides that, learned trial judge has also observed that sanction was invalid since there was no application of mind while issuing sanction. Learned trial judge further observed that, since sanction is not valid, it vitiates entire proceedings. 7. Accordingly, after analyzing evidence on record, learned trial judge acquitted accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the charges levelled against them and the view adopted by learned trial judge, after scrutinizing and appreciating evidence on record, is a possible view to be adopted and reasoning given therefore appears to be proper and 4 logical and further view adopted by learned trial judge does not appear to be perverse and hence no interference therein is called for. 8. In the result, present application being sans merit stands dismissed and leave to file appeal is refused. 9. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) ..... aaa/4532.09