THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusBALU S/O. LIMBAJI SANAP

2026:BHC-AUG:44701


                                                  {1}                 ALS -102-2020


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 102 OF 2020

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Anti Corruption Bureau,
                 Jalna.                                         ….Applicant

                              Versus

                 Balu S/o. Limbaji Sanap
                 Age: 39 years, Occu.: Service,
                 R/o.Pawansut Mangal Karyalaya,
                 Kalika Nagar, Near Water Tank,
                 Nagar Road, Beed, District Beed.                …..Respondent
                                                  …..
                 Mr.V.S.Badakh, Advocate for Applicant.
                 Mr.Pratik Arvind Bhosle, Advocate for Respondent
                                                  …..
                                        CORAM :    ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                        RESERVED ON   : 29 SEPTEMBER, 2026
                                        PRONOUNCED ON : 30 SEPTEMBER, 2026
                 ORDER :


                 1.      Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and order of acquittal

                 passed by learned Special Judge, Jalna in Special Case (ACB) No.17

                 of 2017, State has preferred instant application for leave to file

                 appeal.




                 2.      Learned APP would point out that, accused was working as a

                 Talathi. That, complainant PW1 Prakash had approached accused for
                                  {2}                     ALS -102-2020


taking mutation entry in respect of the well situated in land Block

No.647 over 7/12 extract and for the said work, there was demand

of Rs.1,500/-. That, complaint to that effect was received by the Anti

Corruption Bureau (ACB). He pointed out that, all formalities were

completed by engaging shadow pancha and giving necessary

instructions. He would submit that, prior to main trap, demand

verification was also got done and thereafter, main trap was

conducted. That, at both time, there is demand and complainant and

shadow pancha are consistent on the same. He pointed out that,

tainted currency was also recovered from accused substantiating

acceptance. He would submit that, sanction was undisputedly held

to be valid by the learned trial Court. However, learned trial Court

erroneously acquitted the accused by holding that demand and

acceptance were not cogently proved. That, State has a good case to

be dealt in appeal and therefore, he urges for leave to file appeal.




3.    Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/original accused

would support the impugned judgment and prays to refuse the leave.




4.    Perused the record.        It appears that PW1 Prakash is
                                   {3}                 ALS -102-2020


complainant, PW2 Sushilkumar is shadow pancha and PW3 Vinod

Chavan is the Investigating Officer. Evidence of complainant is at

Exhibit 19, that of shadow pancha is at Exhibit 23 and that of

Investigating Officer is at Exhibit 34.

5.    In the light of nature of charge, it is to be seen whether

demand at the outset is at all proved or not.       On studying the

testimony of PW1 complainant, it is noticed that, he has not stated

the date on which he initially met accused for his work during which

he claims that there was demand of Rs.1,500/-. He merely deposed

that on 11-05-2017 he approached ACB.

      According to PW1 complainant, while verifying demand, when

he and PW2 shadow pancha approached accused in his office and

when he asked about his work, accused told him to give money, upon

which he expressed his inability to pay Rs.1,500/- but was in position

to pay Rs.1,000/- and thereafter, they returned and narrated such

events to the PW3 Investigating Officer. He did not depose about

pre-trap panchanama being drawn after confirmation of demand.

      In paragraph 3 of examination-in-chief, he directly deposed

that he and shadow pancha again went to accused, met him and

asked accused to take entry on 7/12 extract. According to
                                 {4}                  ALS -102-2020


complainant, at that time, accused suggested him to put the amount

in plastic carry-bag kept on the table and accordingly he inserted

tainted currency in the carry-bag and gave predetermined signal.

      However, while under cross-examination, he admitted that, he

himself raised issue of money.     He also admitted of not hearing

conversation which took place between him and accused. He was

also unable to tell in which manner accused suggested him to put

money in the carry-bag.




6.    On the contrary PW2 Sushilkumar, shadow pancha, though

deposed about carrying voice recorder for demand verification and

hearing accused demanding Rs.1,500/-, regarding the events of the

main trap, he deposed that, on 12-05-2017 at about 3:00 p.m.

accused met complainant and asked him to put the amount in one

carry-bag and thereafter, complainant gave signal. Therefore, here,

shadow pancha does not speak about any conversation between

complainant and accused, which was narrated by complainant in his

evidence that accused demanded Rs.1,500/-, but there were

negotiations and complainant agreed to pay Rs.1,000/-.       Shadow

pancha does not corroborate complainant on such count.
                                  {5}                    ALS -102-2020


       On close scrutiny of evidence of shadow pancha, more

particularly paragraph 2 of examination-in-chief, one does not come

across any demand raised by accused as this witness directly states

that accused met complainant and asked him to put amount in carry-

bag.

       In cross-examination, he has admitted that, at the time of

demand verification, he was standing outside office and he also

volunteers that demand was by way of gestures and not orally.




7.     Thus, what is culled out from above evidence is that, witnesses

i.e. PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha are firstly not

consistent. According to complainant, there was oral demand but

according to shadow pancha, there was demand by way of gestures.

Admittedly, recovery is not found from person of accused but from

carry-bag which was kept on the table. Therefore, it cannot be said

that there was acceptance. Moreover, here, as stated above, when

was initial demand raised is not stated by complainant. Therefore,

case of prosecution on the points of both demand acceptance comes

under shadow of doubt and for such reason and with such quality of

evidence, no fault can be attributed to learned trial Court for refusing
                                   {6}                      ALS -102-2020


to accept case of prosecution. Consequently, this Court does not find

that any fruitful purpose would be served by granting leave, as there is no

good or prospective ground for doing so.          Hence, leave refused.

Accordingly, following order is passed :

                                 ORDER



                      The application is rejected.



                                         ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                                JUDGE

SPT