1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1720 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ..... APPLICANT V E R S U S Baban S/o Rau Sathe .... RESPONDENT Shri. V.H.Dighe, A.P.P. for State. [ CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. ] DATE : 16/06/2009 ------------------------------------------------- PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri. V.H.Dighe, A.P.P. for State. This is an application presented under Section 378 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to present Appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – 2, Ahmednagar in Special Case No. 13 of 2003. 2. The respondent/accused was prosecuted for commission of 2 offence punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘ the Act ’ ). The prosecution story is that the accused, who was serving in the office of Sub Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar as a Clerk, received an amount of Rs. 360/- by way of bribe for handing over certain documents for taking out the xerox copies thereof. The copying charges in respect of supply of documents were stated to be Rs. 160/- and the amount equivalent thereof was deposited with the concerned Bank. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused has appropriated Rs. 200/- towards illegal gratification. 3. With the assistance of learned A.P.P., I have perused the Judgment recorded by the trial Court. On perusal of Judgment, it transpires that the case put up by the prosecution in respect of demand of amount made by the accused for handing over file for taking out xerox copies of the documents, has not been substantiated. P.W. 2, panch witness, has clearly admitted in his cross examination that the accused had tried to remove currency notes, which he had received in excess of the copying charges and was saying at the relevant time that he has to return the same to the complainant and during that process, he was caught by the raiding party. The defence of the accused is that he has 3 received amount in excess of the amount payable towards copying charges and as such while he was in process of returning the said amount, he was caught by the raiding party. The defence of accused is substantiated by the admission given in cross examination by P.W. 2. 4. In this view of the matter, it appears that the reasonable view has been taken by the learned Special Judge while dealing with the matter. Merely because some other view is also possible in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not a ground for causing interference in an order of acquittal recorded in the criminal trial. There is no force in the application. The application seeking leave to present Appeal, therefore, stands rejected. Consequently, the Appeal also stands dismissed. [ R.M.BORDE ] JUDGE knp/CRIAPLN1720.09