STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KESHAV BALU DEOKARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned A.P.P. for the Applicant-State.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6.4.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.O.C.) Thane, this application for leave to file appeal against acquittal is filed by the State. By the impugned judgment and order, the respondent-accused is acquitted under Section 5(1)(e) read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. I have perused the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge and the evidence, which has been produced by the learned A.P.P.

(3.) IT is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair 2003 (1) SCC 1. In the case of C. Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for.