1 appln 56 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICTION NO.56 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant -versus Sou. Sandhya Dalu Gagare and ors .. Respondents. Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 29th September, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, ordered by the learned Special Judge, Pune. Respondent No.1 was serving as Deputy Commissioner, Slum Development Department, Municipal Corporation, Pune. Respondent No.2 Ladkat was serving as labourer in the same department. Respondent No.3 was a contractor. It was alleged that the payments in respect of complainant's work were to be passed by the respondent No.1, for which she demanded bribe by asking the complainant to see respondent No.2 Ladkat. Ladkant is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs.9,500/- and accordingly a trap was laid twice but could not 2 appln 56 of 2011 succeed. On the third occasion, complainant, in the presence of Panch Ashok Mane, is supposed to have paid bribe amount to Respondent No.2 Ladkat. A sum of Rs.9,500/- was initially agreed to be paid, therefore, anthracene powder had been smeared to Rs.9,500/-, Eventually Ladkat seems to have reduced the same to Rs.8,500/- and thus, amount of Rs. 8,500/- was paid by the complainant to Ladkat. Ladkat seems to have given the amount to respondent No.3 Kachve and the amount was recovered from respondent No.3 Kachave. The hands of Ladkat and Kachave were found to have smeared with anthracene powder after necessary signal was received, the raiding party swooped. 2. Learned trial Judge held first that the bill in respect of which bribe was demanded had already been passed on 19th April, 2006 the day on which trap was successful. He further observed that on the day of trap the accused Ladkat had not demanded bribe till they consumed Sharbat in hotel. The learned Judge also found that there were discrepancies in the evidence of complainant and the panch witnesses. P.W-3 Ashok Mane, the panch states having accompanied the complainant to Ladkat, but does not state about the dialogue between Ladkat and the complainant in the same manner in which the complainant deposed. The complainant deposed that he took out the currency notes from his pocket of shirt 3 appln 56 of 2011 and retaining one currency note of Rs.1000/-, handed over the balance of Rs.8500/- to Shri.Ladkat. Considering all this, the learned Judge held that the charges were not proved. It cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Judge is perverse or improbable. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. \ (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)