1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3583 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3579 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.509 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri R.N.Dhorde, Advocate, instructed by Shri Amol S. Sawant Advocate for the applicant in criminal application No. 3583 of 2009. Shri V.N.Damle, Advocate, instructed by Shri H.F.Pawar Advocate for applicant in criminal application no.3579 OF 2009. 1. These are the two applications by two appellants who are original accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and who were convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, 2 Hingoli, in Special Case No. 2 of 2007 decided on 1.10.2009. Accused were held guilty for accepting bribe of Rs. 7,000/= and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs.15,000/=, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. 2. Briefly stated, the complainant Balaji s/o Suryakant Deshmukh owned agricultural field at village Zari and he had planted teak trees in his land. He cut 95 teak trees with the permission of the forest department and thereafter on 9.1.2006 he filed an application with the office of Forest Ranger, Parbhani for permission to transport those cut teak wood. That application was sent to the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Hingoli for further steps. The complainant could not meet accused No.1 in his office at Hingoli for three to four days but later on saw Mr. Gunjkar in his office when accused No. 1 demanded Rs.7,000/= for granting the permission. 3 3. On 17.4.2006, the complainant had a talk on cell phone with accused No.1 when he made enquiry about his work and told that he is to keep the amount of Rs.7000/= ready. Accused No.1 told complainant to come next day between 10 am to 12 noon. Being not ready to pay the amount, complainant contacted department of A.C.B. Parbhani and lodged a complaint. Thereafter, trap was arranged and complainant, panch witness and A.C.B. authorities went to the office of accused No.1 where accused No.2 was present. Accused No.1 asked complainant to pay the amount to accused No.2. Accordingly, complainant gave the amount to accused No. 2 who counted the same. On necessary signal, trap was laid and accused No. 2 was caught-hold. 4. It is argued by Advocate Shri Dhorde that so far as accused No.1 is concerned, there was no demand by him. However, there is evidence of complainant that he had met accused No. 4 1 Gunjkar one week prior to the raid. Unless demand was made, there was no reason for complainant to approach accused No.1 with money. According to Advocate Mr.Dhorde, everything was cooked up at Parbhani, accused No. 2 was working in Parbhani office and there was no reason for accused No. 1 working at Hingoli to ask complainant to pay the amount to accused No.2 from Parbhani. 5. Advocate Shri V.N.Damle for accused No. 2 submitted that accused No. 2 working in Parbhani office had gone to Hingoli for office work i.e to deliver some letters in the said office and he had nothing to do with the transaction between complainant and accused No.1. According to Advocate Shri Damle, accused No.2 only showed chamber of accused No. 1 to complainant when asked and money was planted in his hand. 6. Evidence of complainant indicates that there was demand by accused No.1 5 Gunjkar and the demand was confirmed on cell phone message on 17.4.2006 and thereafter raiding party went to the office of accused No. 1. Evidence of the complainant indicates that when he had been in the chamber of accused No. 1, accused No.1 asked him to pay amount to accused No.2 and accordingly complainant went outside and paid the amount to accused No.2. 7. Learned counsel for both the accused place reliance upon observations in paragraphs 3 and 4 in the case of Kiran Kumar vs. State of M.P. 2001 AIRSCW 5130. However, those are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 7. After considering the judgment of the trial court, I am of the opinion that there is prima facie case against both the accused. 8. Hence, both the criminal applications for bail stand rejected. However, since there are not many 6 under-trial cases, hearing of the appeal is expedited. It is directed that paperbook be prepared at the earliest and the matter be placed on board for hearing after paperbook is ready. Date:06/11/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/criap3583.09