( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1203 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Digambar Ambadas Mali & another RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. R.D. Reddy, APP for the applicant/State. Mr. A.B. Kale, advocate, holding for Mr. B.K. Pawar, advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgement rendered in Special Case (AC) No. 7/2007, by the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad, whereby both the respondents were acquitted for the offence punishable under section 7, 13 (I) (d) read with section 13 (2) of ( 2 ) the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the PCA Act”). 3. Allegedly, PW1 Sanjay Kale (complainant) approached the respondent No.1, who was working as village talathi, for recording an entry about encumbrances of loan sanctioned by Canera Bank in favour of his father in respect of “other rights” column of the 7/12 record for lands bearing Gat Nos. 154 and 155 situated at village Bhanasgaon. The Bank had issued a letter addressed to the respondent No. 1 (Talathi) to record such entry of the encumbrances. The letter dated 07-03-2007 was personally taken by PW Sanjay Kale to the respondent No.1 – Talathi somewhere before about 5/6 days of the incident of trap. Then, the respondent No. 1 had demanded the amount of Rs. 700/- as illegal gratification to do the official work, namely, to record entry in the “other rights” column of the 7/12 register regarding the outstanding bank loan. After negotiations, the demand was reduced to Rs. 500/-. It was informed by the respondent No. 1 that on 22-03-2007, the work will be done if the payment is made as per the ( 3 ) demand. Thereafter, PW Sanjay Kale approached the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.). He lodged complaint about the demand for illegal gratification. The Deputy Superintendent of Police of A.C.B. called for two (2) panchas. They were explained about contents of the report and further action to be taken in the matter in respect of the trap which was to be led. A pre-trap panchanama was drawn. The currency notes of Rs. 500/- were smeared with anthracene powder and demonstration was given to the complainant and the panchas about the use of the tainted currency notes at the time of the trap. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22nd March, 2007, PW Sanjay Kale and the shadow witness (panch No. 1 – PW Maheshkumar) together went to the office of the respondent No.1 where the respondent No.2 alone was present, who is the private clerk employed by the respondent No.1. After some time, the respondent No. 1 returned to his office. He instructed PW Sanjay Kale to hand over the bribe amount to the respondent No. 2 by gestures. The tainted currency notes were handed over to the respondent No.2 and thereafter, the letter issued by the Bank was acknowledged by the respondent ( 4 ) No. 1 with an endorsement thereon. The complainant – PW Sanjay Kale gave signal towards the raiding party. Allegedly, the tainted currency notes were recovered from the respondent No. 2 under a post-trap panchanama. 4. At the trial, PW Sanjay Kale withdrew his support to the case of the prosecution to material extent. The learned Special Judge noticed that there were several discrepancies in the versions of PW Sanjay Kale and the shadow witness i.e. PW2 Maheshkumar Shingare. The material discrepancies included the manner in which the bribe amount was demanded at the time of incident of the trap and the manner of its payment to the respondent No.2. 5. On consideration of the reasoning of the learned Special Judge, it is manifestly clear that the first demand of Rs. 700/- is not duly brought on surface of record through version of PW Sanjay Kale. Moreover, PW Sanjay Kale lost credibility due to antipathy towards the case of prosecution. It was stated by PW Sanjay Kale in his complaint that when the first demand was ( 5 ) made by the respondent No. 1, then he was accompanied by two (2) persons whose names were spelt out by him. Neither of the said persons was examined by the prosecution in order to prove the first demand which allegedly was put forth prior to about 5/6 days of the incident of trap. The versions of PW Sanjay Kale and the shadow witness Maheshkumar are discrepant with each other as to the manner in which the bribe amount was demanded at the time of the trap and the nature of conversation between the respondent No. 1 and PW Sanjay Kale. The mere fact that tainted currency notes were recovered from the respondent No. 2 would not be a sufficient ground to infer complicity of the respondents. The learned Special Judge has ascribed good reasons in support of the conclusion that the first demand of the bribe amount is not duly proved nor the evidence pertaining to the payment of bribe at the time of the incident of trap, on instructions of the respondent No. 1, has been duly proved. In this view of the matter, there is no substantial reason to reconsider the order of the acquittal. It is well settled that when two (2) views are possible, the order of acquittal ( 6 ) cannot be interfered with only because some other view is possible. Under the circumstances, leave to appeal is refused. The application is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgement of acquittal is confirmed. Consequently, the criminal appeal stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN1203-09