1 Appln 2962-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2962 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .Applicant V/s. Ramchhabil Jagaru Kushwah .Respondent Mr.J.P.Kharge, APP, for the Applicant - State None for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to file an appeal against acquittal of the respondent ordered by the learned Special Judge, Thane for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was serving as Junior Engineer with MSEB. He is alleged to have asked for a bribe amount of Rs.3000/- for providing 2 Appln 2962-2010 electrical connection in the name of one Abhimanyu Rasam, who has not been examined. Rasam is the landlord of the premises. It is alleged that demand was made with Ganesh Kutan Waliya Parambel PW-2 on whose complaint an offence was registered and who was the tenant. It is alleged that the applicant received a sum of Rs.3000/- from the said Ganesh. The learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent holding first that the hands of respondent were not tainted, since the amount in question was kept in the drawer of the respondent. He also held that Rasam had provided the bribe amount of Rs.3000/- to the Complainant and yet for no reason Rasam was not examined. He also held that in the post trap panchanama, there was no mention about the demand being made by the respondent. The learned APP has made available for my perusal copies of depositions of the witnesses and it appears from the deposition of PW-3 Amol Ashok Jadhav, who was shadow witness that the Complainant Ganesh 3 Appln 2962-2010 had told the accused that he had brought the cable and then added that he had brought money as demanded by the accused which would rule out any demand of money on the part of the respondent. Money itself was found in the drawer. Therefore, it cannot be said that view taken by the learned Judge was perverse or improper. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)