1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2171 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant. V E R S U S Daulat Narhari Munde ..Respondent. Shri K.S. Patil, learned APP for the applicant. CORAM : V .R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 7TH AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. Heard. 2- Being dis-satisfied with the judgment of acquittal renderred in Special Case No. 4/2005 by the learned Special Judge, Ambajogai, the State has come up in appeal. 3- The respondent was tried before the Learned Special Judge for offence under section 7, 13 (1) (b) r/w section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Allegedly he demanded bribe of Rs.600/- for grant of subsity in name of wife of the complainant pertaining to construction of a house under scheme called “Indira Awas Yojana”. The respondent is Assistant Civil Engineer attached to Zilla Parishad, Beed at Ambajogai office. It appears that complainant himself did not support the prosecution case on main point. He admitted that there was no Grampanchayat resolution for construction of 2 the house property. The shadow of panch turned hostile to the prosecution. The demand of illegal gratification was not proved because the same was not spelt out by the complainant. The sanction order was produced on record, however, the sanctioning authority i.e Chief Officer of the Zilla Parishad was not examined to prove the sanction. The learned Special Judge noticed that application of mind by the sanctioning authority is not proved. Considering the deficiencies noticed by the learned Sessions Judge, impugned judgment of acquittal came to be renderred. No interference is warranted in as much as there appears no patent error committed by the learned Sessions Judge while assessing the evidence and acquitting the respondent. Hence leave to appeal is refused and appeal is dismissed. ( V. R. KINGAONKAR , J. ) ..... aaa/2171.09