1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATIOIN NO. 846 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra .. APPLICANT VERSUS Ganpat Shankarrao Potdar .. RESPONDENT Smt. S.S. Autade, APP for the State. Shri Sapkal, Advocate for the respondent. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 13 th July, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an application seeking leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case no. 2/2007 on 18-11-2008. 2 Respondent / accused is alleged to have accepted bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- from the informant towards illegal gratification. It is alleged that accused demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- for settling the criminal matter wherein informant was alleged to have complicity. It is alleged that the complainant was the involved in offence punishable under the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and, for settling the matter, the amount was demanded. It is to be noted that the accused is serving as driver in police department and has no concern with the investigation of the crime. As such, it cannot be said that the demand of amount or payment of 2 the amount to the accused was other than for legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Apart from this, evidence in respect of demand of amount is also not trustworthy. There is variance in the ocular statement of panch witness no. 1 before the police and statement before the court. In the panchanama it has been recorded that the amount was demanded by the accused by making gestures. However, while deposing before the court, the witness has stated that the accused asked him as to whether the work had been done. Evidence of the complainant in that regard is also found to be unreliable by the trial court. 3 I have perused the judgment recorded by the trial court. Evidence recorded by the trial court for arriving at conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the demand of amount by the accused appears to be logical. In the circumstances, the defence raised by the accused is found to be acceptable by the trial court. Considering the relevant circumstances, I am of the view that the conclusion reached by the trial court is a possible view. Merely because some other view is also possible in the facts and circumstances of the case is not a valid ground for causing interference in the order of acquittal. There is no merit in the application. Application seeking leave to file appeal therefore stands rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/criappln846.09.odt