1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1860/2010 The State of Maharashtra Applicant. V E R S U S Ajay Ashok Dhamore and another.. Respondents. Mr. S. D. Kaldate, Learned APP for Applicant - State. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard Mr. S.D. Kaldate, learned APP for the applicant-state. 2- The applicant-state has preferred present application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.1.2010 rendered by First Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Jalgaon in Special Case No.12/2007 acquitting the respondents/original accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 7,13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) and under section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3- I have gone through impugned judgment dated 15.1.2010 with the assistance of learned APP. It is alleged that the respondent no.1 was 2 serving as Junior Engineer and respondent No.2 was serving as Assistant Lineman with MSEDCL at the relevant time and the complainant Sharad Patil owns agricultural land gat No.69 at village Anandnagar and electric motor pump was installed on the well in his farm. However, the transformer of said DP was burnt on 17.9.2006 and onion crop was standing in the filed of the complainant and therefore he approached the respondents with a request to install a new transformer on DP. It is also alleged that respondents demanded illegal gratification amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant to do the said work and after negotiations said amount was settled at Rs.4,000/- out of which Rs.3,000/- allegedly paid by the complainant to the respondents and balance amount of Rs.1,000/- was to be paid by the complainant to the respondents at which time trap was arranged after completion of due formalities and after lodging complaint by the complainant. It is also alleged that balance amount of Rs.1,000/- was paid by the complainant to respondent no.2 as per instructions of accused no.1 and the tainted currency notes were found in possession of the accused No.2. Accused No.1 and 2 were tried for the aforesaid charges. Prosecution has examined in all four witnesses to substantiate the said charges leveled against respondents/accused. They are PW 1 Sharad Patil complainant, PW 2 Narayan Misal sanctioning authority, PW 3 Mohd Saki panch witness and PW 4 Dy. S. P Prakash Sonar Investigating Officer. 4- Pertinently, complainant has not supported the case of the 3 prosecution on the point of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused persons. In fact his version was favourable to the accused but still he was not cross examined by the learned APP. It apparently hampers the case of the prosecution. Moreover, there is variance between the testimony of PW 1 complainant and panch witness PW 3 Mohd. Saki on vital aspects. Moreover, there is no corroboration between the prosecution witnesses on the material points such as demand of gratification amount and payment thereof which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 5- In the circumstances, it appears that there is no perversity in the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by learned trial judge and view adopted by the learned trial judge after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence is a possible view to be adopted and no interference therein is warranted under appellate jurisdiction. 6- In the result, present application bears no substance, same is devoid of merit and same stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal stands refused. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) ..... aaa/1860.10