* 1 * Cri.Appln. 1431.2010 7.1.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1431 OF 2010 [For Leave to Appeal] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 (Against the Order of acquittal) The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant/Orig.Comp. V/S. Sudhakar Bhikaji Bhagwat & anr. ... Respondents/Orig.Accd nos.1 & 2 * * * * * * Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the applicant-State. None for the respondents. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 7 January, 2011. P.C. : 1. This is an application by the State for leave to file appeal to challenge the judgment and order dated 5th January, 2010 passed by the District Court, Satara acquitting the respondents of the offences * 2 * Cri.Appln. 1431.2010 7.1.2011 punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Perusal of the record and the impugned judgment shows that the trial court found that the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court in the form of panchanama relating to the trial were prepared subsequently and signatures of the panch witnesses obtained thereon. The panch witness admitted in the cross-examination that both the panchanamas were prepared on 13th June, 2006 and he had signed the seized articles i.e. sealed envelope of currency notes and panchanama. However, the documents produced before the court show a different date. There was also difference in the timing of the panchanama. As per P.W.2-the panch witness, the pre-trap panchanama was started at about 12.45 p.m. and it was completed at about 2.30 p.m. The pre-trap panchanama at Exhibit-19 shows that it was started by the Investigation Officer at 1.00 p.m. and completed at 3.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer in his cross-examination stated that at about 2.30 p.m. he had left the CBI office. Thus there was material contradiction in the deposition of the panch witness, the Investigating Officer and the pre- trap panchanama. The post-trap panchanama shows that the parties had left the A.C.B. office at about 3.15 p.m. This could have been possible * 3 * Cri.Appln. 1431.2010 7.1.2011 only if the panchanama were to get over at 3.00 p.m. and not at 2.30 p.m. The trial court was of the opinion that the entire case was a concocted story prepared by the A.C.B. officer with the help of the complainant. It also notes that there was no consistency in the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 4. As regards the demand and acceptance of bribe, the complainant stated initially in his cross-examination that the amount was recovered from the drawer by P.W.2 which amount had been lying there for a long time. But further states that he does not remember as to who had seized the amount and from where. In view of these material contradictions, the trial court acquitted the respondents. This being a plausible view, the application for leave to file appeal is rejected. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]