( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3712 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Vinayak s/o. Sudhakarrao Lokhande .. Respondent Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the applicant/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 08.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard A.P.P. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi for the applicant. Perused record and proceedings. The learned A.P.P. has taken me through the judgment and relevant record. In judgment para 30 onwards the Trial Court has discussed plausible defence of the amount of Rs. 200/- given as donation to Dhwajnidhi rather than as consideration or gratification for supply of copy of 7/12 extract. It is argued that whatever stated by the complainant and panch witness Mukund was consistent with the theory put-forth by the accused that earlier the complainant had agreed to pay ( 2 ) Rs. 200/- as Dhwajnidhi and feeling that he is paying the same, he has accepted the amount. In-fact, this was not the amount for supply of 7/12 extract. 2. Particularly in para 33 of the judgment, it is specifically observed that P.W.2-Mukund in cross-examination admitted that about 20-25 minutes prior to arrival of police there was discussion of flag day collection and if the accused had really intention in his mind to accept the bribe then obviously by way of natural conduct he would have made such demand soon after meeting with the complainant and after his arrival at his house. It is also to be noted that 7/12 extracts were handed over and later on accused said that as agreed amount of Rs. 200/- be paid. So, it is case of the defence that amount of Rs. 200/- was accepted by accused towards Dhwajnidhi. 3. In para 35 of the judgment it is further brought on record that Tahsildar, Badnapur had passed order to recover Rs. 1000/- towards Dhwajnidhi (Flag Day donation) from the salary of the accused in the month of July 2006 by order Exh. 36. As per document Exh. 37 the Tahsildar has made available ( 3 ) the receipt book for collection of Dhwajnidhi and a target was given. 4. So, possibility of defence being true is equal. It is now well settled law that when two possibilities are there, then one in favour of the accused should be accepted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, this is not case where leave to file appeal against order of acquittal can be granted. The judgment of the Trial Court is well reasonable and probable. Hence, leave to file appeal against acquittal is rejected. The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/cra3712.09