1 cra192.10 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 192 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Sonu Shankar Kashid ... Respondent Mr. Y.M. Pendse, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : JANUARY 10, 2011 P.C. 1) This is an application by the State seeking leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order dated 25th October, 2009 passed by the Special Judge for Greater Bombay in A.C.B. Special Case No. 4 of 2003 acquitting the respondent of the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant's uncle was the lessee of Mumbai Municipal Corporation in respect of gala no. 8 in Sewree area of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. During his life time, the uncle had executed an affidavit and a Power of Attorney in the name of wife of the 2 cra192.10 complainant namely Fatima. After the death of the uncle, Fatima opened a shop in the said Gala under the name and style as "Fatima General Stores". The complainant used to help her in the business. Tenancy of the gala, however, continued to remain in the name of deceased uncle. The complainant was persuading the respondent who was Rent Collector of the Bombay Municipal Corporation for transfer of tenancy in the name of his wife Fatima. On 2nd September, 2002, the respondent allegedly told the complainant that the running of the shop from gala by the wife of complainant was illegal about which a complaint was received to his office. When the complainant requested the respondent for transfer of the shop in the name of his wife Fatima, respondent demanded Rs. 2 lac. for the same. When the complainant showed his inability to pay such a large amount, the respondent reduced the demand to Rs. 40,000/-. He allowed the complainant to pay amount by installments and asked for first installment of Rs.5000/- to be paid on the very same day i.e. on 6th September, 2002 in the noon in front of his office near one Kirti Mahal Hotel. The complainant then approached anti corruption Bureau, Worli, Mumbai on the same day, on the basis of which the offence was registered and trap was laid after following the prescribed procedure. 3 cra192.10 2) The prosecution examined the complainant and panch witnesses in support of its case. The panch witnesses however, did not support the prosecution. The complainant also turned hostile. On appreciation of evidence, the Special Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that on the date of incident the respondent had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.40,000/- and accepted the bribe of Rs.5,000/- as first installment from the complainant as reward for showing favour to the complainant's wife. It also held that the prosecution has failed to prove that on the given date, time and place, respondent abusing his position as public servant obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.5000/- for himself from the complainant and thereby committed criminal misconduct. 3) As regards the presence of the respondent at gala premises, the special court has taken a view that the presence of the respondent there cannot be said to be unusual or extraordinary as respondent is working as Rent Collector with Mumbai Municipal Corporation. As a rent collector, his presence at gala was natural. In these circumstances, the Sessions Court acquitted the respondent and dismissed the complaint against him. 4 cra192.10 4) On perusal of the record, the view taken by the learned Special Judge seems to be a possible view and hence, the same cannot be altered. In the circumstances, application for leave is rejected. (Judge)