( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 944 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Machindra s/o Kondiba @ Kondaji Jogdand and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. R.D. Reddy, APP for the applicant/State. Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, advocate for respondent No. 1. Application abated against respondent No. 2 as per Court’s order dated 21-07-2009. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 29th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Challenging the order of acquittal rendered in Special Case No. 9/2005 (old No. 13/2001), by the learned Special Judge, Majalgaon, the State seeks leave to file appeal. 3. Complainant Tolaji Hirve alleged that his brother purchased an agricultural land comprising of 2 ( 2 ) hectares out of block No. 104 at village Jawla-Fakir. The respondent No. 1 is the village Talathi and respondent No. 2is the kotwal. The respondent No. 1 allegedly demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5000/- which was reduced to Rs. 2000/- after negotiations. The complainant informed about such demand to the Anti Corruption Bureau. A trap was led on July 25th, 2000. The illegal gratification was allegedly accepted by the respondent No. 2 as per instructions of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 immediately offered explanation that the amount was for royalty in respect of a brick-kiln situated in the land and it was due from the brother of the complainant. The learned Special Judge considered the material placed on record and held that the defence of the respondent No. 1 was quite probable. 4. It appears from the record that royalty amount of Rs. 6780/- was due from the brother of the complainant, namely, Manaji Hirve who runs a brick-kiln in the agricultural land. The respondent No. 1 attempted to recover the amount of royalty as per instructions of his superior officers. His defence revealed that he visited the agricultural land of Manaji Hirve from time to time and demanded the royalty amount. The learned Special Judge noticed that complainant Tolaji changed his version during the course of trial as regards the period of demand. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the land was purchased by brother of ( 3 ) the complainant and, therefore, his brother was the person who could have sought mutation of his name in the revenue record. Howcome that the complainant was interested and insisted for such mutation entry is not properly explained. What appears from the record is that at the relevant time, the respondent No. 1 called the respondent No. 2 by first name and thereafter, he instructed the complainant to pay the amount of Rs. 2000/- to the respondent No. 2. Needless to say, the respondent No. 1 did not accept the amount by himself. The incident occurred outside the office of the Talathi and under a tree in the courtyard. It is probable, therefore, that the respondent No. 1 was insisting for payment of the royalty amount and that such persistent demands irked brother of the complainant. The possibility that the amount of Rs. 2000/- was paid towards part of such arrears cannot be discarded in view of peculiar circumstances noticed by the learned Special Judge. Considering these aspects, I do not find any substantial reason to interfere with the findings of facts which are not demonstratedly perverse. Hence, the leave to appeal is refused. The application is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN944-08 ( 4 )