1 APPLN 926 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.926 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant -versus Ravindra Pandurang Suryavanshi .. Respondent. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 3rd October, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against acquittal of the respondent, recorded by the learned Special Judge, Thane for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Respondent who was working as Office Superintendent in the office of Provident Fund Unit, Education Department, Thane Zilla Parishad, Thane, had demanded a bribe of Rs. 200/- from the complainant Thorat. He had received Rs.50/- and then at the time of trap received Rs.150/-. The learned Judge acquitted the respondent holding that sanction reflects non application of mind as also factum of receipt of bribe money was not proved. The complainant in this case had died before the trial commenced and therefore could not be 2 APPLN 926 OF 2011 examined at the trial. The learned Judge held that there was discrepancy in the evidence of two panchas and the raiding officer. He also observed that in natural course P.W.2 panch Bochare, who had reached the spot alongwith the raiding officer should have learnt from P. W.1, first panch, as to where the money was kept. The learned Judge also observed that the raiding officer Mr. Chikhale had stated that P.W.1 Ratnakar Awati told him that the accused had accepted the amount. The learned Judge observed that P.W.1 Awati had not stated in his evidence that the accused had accepted money. It is not that Awati stated in his evidence that he had not told Mr.Chikhale that accused had accepted money. Merely because a witness failed to state something about which no question was put to him, it could not be said that there was contradiction. 2. Learned APP has made available for my perusal the copies of notes of evidence, to show that it was the accused who stated that he had kept the money in his shirt pocket. Therefore, the doubts which the learned Judge seems to have had on these counts, would need further examination. The defence of the accused seems to have been that his hands were smeared with anthracene powder when the complainant took out receipt from his pocket and handed over it to the accused. There is no suggestion to P.W.1 Awati that the 3 APPLN 926 OF 2011 complainant took out any receipt from the pocket and handed it over to the accused. Therefore, on the factum of receipt of bribe, may be the observations of the learned Judge are not correct and may be required to be considered once again. 3. As to the non application of mind, in according sanction, the learned Judge seems to have been influenced by the fact that the complainant had stated having gone to the office of accused at about 1.00 p.m, whereas the officer according sanction has mentioned the time of 12.30 hrs. This is not such a great difference which should have influenced the learned Judge to hold that there was non application of mind. 4. The learned Judge also seems to have persuaded by the fact that the Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, examined as P.W.3 stated that he referred the matter to Law and Judiciary Department and the Law and Judiciary Department opined that it was fit case to prosecute,. The learned Judge, refers to admission of witness that if the Law and Judiciary Department had opined that this was not a fit case, he would not have accorded the sanction. This did not reflect non application of mind on the part of Principal Secretary and it could be an exercise of consultation before the officer formed his opinion. The observations made by the 4 APPLN 926 OF 2011 learned Judge require re-consideration. Therefore, leave granted. Admit. Call for Record and Proceeding. Action under Section 390 of Code of Criminal Procedure. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)