STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DILIP VITHAL NACHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal against acquittal, for the offence under sections 7,13(1) (d) r/w section 23(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. recorded by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Special Case No.3/90, a finding of fact has been recorded that there was no demand of the amount from Respondent No.2- Talathi - original accused No.2. The amount is found kept in the register with accused No.2-Talathi and it is found by the learned Judge that the complainant alone had entered the house of accused No.2 though he was instructed that he should go with Panch witnesses,who was supposed to watch the events in the house of accused No.2. Further, the learned Judge also found that there was no demand from accused No.2. In these circumstances,charge against both the respondents held to be not proved. So far as respondent No.1 is concerned, he is circle Inspector from Revenue Department. Though demand is alleged to be made by him he was not present at the time of raid.

(2.) AFTER going through the judgment of the Special Judge, I find that the view taken by him cannot be said perverse in any manner, nor finding recorded by him can be said to be illegal, meaning thereby, that certain important piece of evidence has been excluded from consideration or extraneous material has been taken into consideration. It is a view which is possible and plausible also in the circumstances. Hence, leave to appeal is refused.