1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 13 of 2010 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2010 [Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. W.M. Kukde & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.B. Ahirkar, Adv., for the applicant-appellant. Mr. R.R. Vyas, Adv., for respondent no.1. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 15th April, 2010. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 2. Heard. 3. Central Bureau of Investigation had arranged a trap on both accused persons on account of their demand of bribe. 4. It is alleged that the complaint was tendered on 1st April, 1997 and on the same day, the trap was arranged. It is further alleged that the accused persons accepted the bribe outside the office. However, during raid conducted by the party, the accused were searched while in the office and the tainted notes of bribe money were found with them. 5. The learned Special Judge has disbelieved the complainant, inter alia, on the 2 ground that though the incident of demanding the bribe is dated 25th March, 1997, the complaint was made only on 1st April, 1997, and the things such a trap etc., were very punctually carried out on the same day. In the said background of punctual action, recording of statements of complainant and others is delayed by another 20 days. Typewritten statements contain hand written dates and numerous corrections are done by applying whitner. 6. Taking into account collective effect of the nature of evidence that had come before the Court, the learned Special Judge disbelieved the prosecution story and has acquitted the accused persons. 7. In the appeal, the ground urged is that the learned Special Judge has taken a very technical view of the matter in relation to:- [a] Delay in lodgement of First Information Report. [b] The manner in which the evidence has been appreciated, by giving larger importance to the omissions and insertions. 8. It is seen that the Special Judge found that PWs 3,4 and 5 are not direct witnesses. This aspect is not disputed. The case stands on testimonies of Panch Witness [PW 1] and PW 2 – complainant. 3 9. In the light of discussion as to why the evidence has been disbelieved, it is not shown as to how any different view of the matter was possible. 10. This Court may not subscribe to some of the observations contained in the Judgment as to the fact of the failure of the Witness No.2 – complainant in negotiations etc., on the point of amount of bribe. Rest of the discussion contained in the judgment is based on the reasonable and possible view of the facts of the case. 11. In view of this, this Court finds that the Judgment of acquittal cannot be regarded as perverse or contrary to law. It does not call for any indulgence. 12. In the circumstances, appeal has no merit. 13. Application and appeal are, therefore, rejected. Judge |Hedau| 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No. of 2010 [Kapileshwar Gramin Sah. Pat Sanstha Vs. Abdul Hamid Ab. Bashir] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. V.T. Deshpande, Adv., for the applicant. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 15th April, 2010. 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Call R & P within two weeks. 4. Learned Adv. Mr. V.T. Deshpande for the appellant prays for permission to file a private paper-book. 5. Paper-book be filed within four weeks. 6. Liberty to move after filing of a paper-book. Judge |Hedau| 5