crapln1093.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1093 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra. .. APPLICANT. VERSUS Anilkumar s/o Balajirao Mahindrakar, age 35 years, occu. Talathi, r/o Shrinagar Colony, Taluka and Dist. Hingoli. .. RESPONDENT. (Ori. accused). ... Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, APP for Applicant-State. Shri R.R. Karpe, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 18th February, 2011. PER COURT: Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant / State and the learned Counsel for respondent. 2. The learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that there was initial demand in crapln1093.10 2 the month of August, 2005 of Rs.1000/- for effecting mutation entry. Thereafter, the said demand was repeated on 26th June, 2006. The complainant approached to the A.C.B. office. After following the procedure, trap was arranged on 29th June, 2006. He invited my attention to the evidence of P.W.1 Kailash Rathod - complainant and P.W.2 Dhayade, who is the panch witness and submitted that both the witnesses in their evidence stated that there was demand and acceptance of the amount by the respondent. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the trial Court is perverse and is not in consonance with the evidence on record. 3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent, relying on the reasons / findings recorded by the trial Court, submitted that the evidence of all the witnesses is inconsistent. P.W.5 A.C.P. Mr. Kendre has deposed in his evidence that Mr. Bhandari, the panch witness was not present crapln1093.10 3 for verification. It has come in the evidence of Bhandari that there was no demand. The counsel further submitted that Rs.500/- were asked for measurement as per the instructions of the superior and Rs.200/- were asked as small saving deposit as per the instructions of the superiors. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, total amount of Rs.700/- was for measurement and towards deposit in small saving. The Counsel for respondent also invited my attention to the defence taken by the respondent / accused while recording his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel submitted that since possible view has been taken by the Special Court by appreciating the entire evidence on record, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order of acquittal. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, prima facie, I find considerable crapln1093.10 4 substance in the argument of the learned A.P.P. that the evidence of the complainant Rathod and panch witness Dhayade shows that on the day of trap there was demand and acceptance of the amount by the respondent. That apart, the stand of the respondent that Rs.500/- were accepted as an amount for measurement appears to be incorrect since P.W. 3 in his cross-examination has stated that for measurement up to 2 acres, measurement fees is Rs.500/-. However, admittedly, the area in the instant case is more than 2 acres. Therefore, in my opinion, the matter requires consideration. 5. Hence, application seeking leave to appeal is allowed and disposed of. Registry is directed to register the application as appeal. 6. Appeal admitted. crapln1093.10 5 Action u/s 390 Cr.P.C. to follow. Respondent should be released on same bail, fresh bond in the trial Court. The Special Court / concerned Court shall ensure presence of the respondent twice in a year till disposal of the appeal. Registry to send the record back to the concerned Court for preparation of paper-book. The concerned Court to see that the paper-book is prepared at the earliest and sent to this Court. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*