1 Appln 5837-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5837 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Gunda Ganpati Hatalage ..Respondent Mr.S.A.Shaikh, APP, for the Applicant Mr.Anand S. Patil, Advocate, for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 8TH JUNE, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to appeal against the Judgment of acquittal of the respondent rendered by the learned Special Judge at Ichalkaranji for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent was trapped successfully by the Anti- 2 Appln 5837-2010 corruption Bureau while receiving a sum of Rs. 5000/- from one Gautam Kamble, the Complainant. The learned Judge accepted the defence that Gautam Kamble issued a cheque of Rs.15,000/- to one Parasu Pujari for purchase of five wheeler Rickshaw which was dishonoured. Parasu Pujari was neighbour of the respondent. Therefore, the accused interceded in the matter and ultimately Gautam Kamble had agreed to pay the amount to the respondent. Gautam Kamble then contacted Anti-corruption Bureau and trapped the respondent receiving a sum of Rs.5000/- which the respondent claims to have been received as balance consideration to be paid to Parsu Pujari. The Complainant Gautam Kamble had also filed an Affidavit which is at Exhibit 28 virtually accepting the defence. He, however, retracted that Affidavit and stated that it was obtained from him by force. The learned Judge held that Gautam Kamble had admitted in para 16 of his cross examination that he had 3 Appln 5837-2010 filed several complaints against several persons and several proceedings against several persons in several Courts including the High Court and therefore, was well conversant with the legal proceedings. The defence had also examined Advocate D.M.Latke, who claimed that Gautam Kamble was known to him and claimed that Gautam Kamble had sworn an Affidavit at Exhibit 28. Gautam had admitted the contents of the Affidavit. Therefore, the learned Judge observed that the defence that a sum of Rs.5000/- received by the respondent on behalf of Parsu Pujari is probable. The view taken by the learned Judge cannot be said to be perverse or improbable. Leave refused. 3. Criminal Application is dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)