1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2558 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant VERSUS Brijraj Sing Shiv Sing ...Respondent ..... Shri S.D.Kaldate, APP for applicant (original complaiant) Shri R.N.Dhorde, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 14th June, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri S.D.Kaldate, APP for applicant (original complainant) and Shri R.N.Dhorde, advocate for respondent. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.4.2009 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2 and Special Judge, Ahmednagar in Special Case No. 3 of 2006 acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3 I have gone through the impugned judgment dated 30.4.2010 and the record and proceedings with the assistance of learned A.P.P. for the applicant/State and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is apparent that the respondent (original accused) faced the trial for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the prosecution examined in as much as four witnesses to 2 substantiate the said charges i.e. PW1 Complainant Vijay Nandurkar, PW2 Panch Mahesh Tandlwadkar, PW3 Sanctioning Authority Shalini Singh and PW4 Police Constable of Joshi (reportedly dead) 4 It appears that the complainant PW1 Vijay turned hostile to the case of prosecution and apparently during his cross-examination nothing beneficial to the case of prosecution could be elicited. The learned Trial Judge found the evidence of PW2 Mahesh as not reliable for involving the accused in the alleged crime when the complainant was not ready to involve the accused in the alleged crime, as observed by him in para 16 of the impugned judgment. It is also observed by the learned Trial Judge that after scrutinizing the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge found the evidence of PW1 Complainant Vijay and PW2 Panch Mahesh not corroborative to each other, particularly on the point of demand made by the accused and also acceptance of bribe amount at Parvat hotel from the complainant. It is further observed that there is no positive evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime. 5 After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence, it appears that the learned Trial Judge did not found corroboration in the testimonies of PW1 Complainant Vijay and PW2 Panch Mahesh in respect of the very aspect and demand and acceptance of bribe and apparently the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Judge cannot be faulted with. Moreover, the view adopted by the learned Trial Judge, after analyzing the evidence, is the possible view and same does not appear to be perverse, and therefore, no interference therein is warranted. 6 In the circumstances, present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merit and same stands dismissed and leave to file appeal stands refused. R.and P. be sent back to the Trial Court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap255.09 3