STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RUPESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 13.08.2001 passed by Special Judge, (Anti Corruption), Yavatmal in Special Case No. 6/1995 by which the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent of the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13 (1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the present appeal was filed by the appellant -State.

(2.) In support of appeal, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the learned trial Judge erred in recording the order of acquittal. She submitted that the sanction order, that was granted by the sanctioning authority did not suffer from any infirmity, still the learned trial Judge has found the same to be without application of mind, which is perverse. It is submitted that the demand and acceptance being proved, there is was no point in expecting the demand in a particular manner by the accused and, therefore, the approach of the trial Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence is perverse. She, therefore, submitted that the order of acquittal for these reasons, require interference from this Court.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the appeal filed by the State and submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed on all counts in proving its case and was rightly found by the trial Judge. There is no perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence. On the contrary, the trial Judge has considered the settled legal position about the various aspects involved in such types of cases. He, therefore, submitted that the trial Judge has taken a correct view of the evidence and there is no perversity whatsoever in the view taken by the trial Judge. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.