1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 859 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant VERSUS Sanjay Devidas Dighe ...Respondent ..... Smt. B.R.Khekale, advocate for applicant ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 14 th July, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Smt. B.R.Khekale, advocate for applicant. 2 The applicant/State has preferred the present application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.11.2009, rendered by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalna, in Special Case No. 1 of 2009 (PCA) acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 2 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 3 I have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 as well as perused the record and proceedings with the assistance of learned A.P.P. for the applicant. 4 In short, it is the case of prosecution that the respondent i.e. accused Sanjay Devidas Dighe was working as Talathi posted at village Antarwali Rathi, Taluka Ghansavangi, Taluka Jalna at the relevant time and complainant Bappasaheb Patekar was in need of agricultural loan, and therefore, met the accused to take the entry of charge of loan in 7/12 extract of his field, but accused demanded Rs. 200/- therefor. Consequently, complaint came to be lodged and first trap was held on 12.8.2008, but same failed. Ultimately second trap was laid on 21.8.2010, which was allegedly successful. 5 To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, prosecution examined in as much as five witnesses, as follows :- PW1 Bappasaheb Patedar PW2 Nagnath Saundre, panch 3 PW3 Sambhaji Manikrao Mane, second panch PW4 Rita Metrewar, S.D.O. and sanctioning authority PW5 A.K.Sawai, Dy.S.P. investigating officer. 6 It appears that after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence, learned Trial Court observed that evidence of complainant was found unworthy of credence, since he has changed his stand and version from time to time, as he supported the prosecution in his examination-in-chief, but supported the defence in cross- examination, and therefore, his evidence does not inspire confidence. Learned Trial Judge also observed that similar is the case of PW3 Sambhaji and he also changed his version, and therefore, question was raised about his credibility. It is also observed that defence produced the record of 7/12 extract pointing out that the entry of charge of loan in the Bank papers was taken in 7/12 extract on 12.8.2008 itself, and therefore, there was no reason for the complainant to take bribe on 21.8.2008 on that ground. 7 Learned Trial Judge also observed that the accused was given the target of collection of Dhwaj Nidhi and same was not 4 achieved by him and accused has succeeded to rebut the presumption and shown that he obtained Dhwaj Nidhi and that explanation falls in the ambit of preponderance of probability. 8 Consequently, learned Trial Judge arrived to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused and acquitted him therefrom. After scanning and analyzing the evidence on record, reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge cannot be faulted with. Moreover, the view adopted by the learned Trial Judge after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence is a possible view to be adopted and no perversity is found therein and no interference therein is called for under the appellate jurisdiction. 9 In the result, present application being sans merit stands dismissed and leave to file appeal stands refused. R. and P. be sent back to the concerned court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap859.10 5