[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4151 OF 2006. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4151 OF 2006. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4151 OF 2006. The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant. Vs. Hemant Ganpat Chandewar. ... Respondent. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State. Mr.S.V. Marwadi, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 16, 2008 DATE : JUNE 16, 2008 DATE : JUNE 16, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. The applicant - State of Maharashtra has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against judgment and order dated 21st March 2003, passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, in A.C.B. Special Case No.40 of 2002. By the said judgment, the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution case is that the respondent-accused was posted as P.S.I. at Bhandup Police Station. The complainant, P.W.1-Sonawane approached him in respect of complaint no.498 and the accused demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.3,000/- for not taking any action against the [-2-] complainant and his relatives. 3. I have heard the learned A.P.P. for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent-original accused. I have perused judgment as well as the evidence, which has been produced by the learned A.P.P. 4. It is admitted fact that the complainant is police officer and he was in service at the time of the incident. The learned Special Judge observed that there is no credible material to show that the accused had made a demand for Rs.3,000/- and accordingly, the complainant handed over Rs.3,000/- to the accused. Panch witness, PW 2- Gangawane stated that when they reached at the police chowky, the complainant directed him to remain outside the police chowky and the complainant alone went inside the chowky. In such circumstances, obviously panch witness would not be able to state about any conversation between the complainant and the accused. Thereafter, the complainant came outside the police chowky. Then the complainant removed notes from the shirt pocket and gave it to panch witness. As told the panch went inside the police chowky and kept the notes inside one cardboard box [-3-] which was kept on the floor. It is pertinent to note that panch witness PW 2 does not state that the accused made any demand for any amount from the complainant. The complainant on the other hand, has stated that when he came out of the police chowky with the accused, the accused inquired whether he had brought Rs.3,000/- as told by him earlier. However, panch witness P.W.2 Gangaram is totally silent on this aspect. It is pertinent to note that P.W. 2 panch witness - Gangawane has clearly stated that he was directed to accompany the complainant and to wait and observe the conversation between complainant and the accused. However, despite this fact the complainant asked the panch witness to wait outside the chowky when the complainant went inside the police chowky and had some conversation with the accused. The very fact that the complainant told the panch witness to wait outside, creates a serious doubt about the veracity of the complainant. 5. Moreover, it is the prosecution case that in order to help the complainant, the accused did some over-writing in the record in the station diary. However, there is no evidence to show that such over-writing is effected by the accused. On the [-4-] contrary, from the evidence of PW 4, it appears that there is also similar over-writing in the earlier entries on 21st February 2001 at serial nos.6 to 10. So naturally, when the serial numbers of earlier entries nos.6 to 10 are changed for any reason, subsequent nos. from 11 onwards till 18 which is the last entry dated 21st February 2001 are naturally required to be changed, and thus, merely overwriting of serial numbers of entries from 6 to 18, in the absence of any other evidence to that effect or in the absence of contents of these entries being brought on record by prosecution are of no consequence. 6. On going through the evidence, the learned Special Judge has come to the conclusion that there is reliable and credible material to show that any demand was made by the accused person to the complainant or that he accepted any amount. Hence, he acquitted the respondent-accused. 7. Looking to the evidence of the record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. The application for leave to file appeal is rejected. [-5-] (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.)