THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusCHANDRABHAN S/O. GOVINDRAO GHAVATE

2026:BHC-AUG:42761


                                                                               ALS-111-2020
                                                     -1-

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL BY STATE NO. 111 OF 2020

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through Anti Corruption Bureau,
                 Jalna.                                               … Applicant
                                                                      [Ori. Complainant]
                         Versus

                 Chandrabhan s/o Govindrao Ghavate,
                 Age 43 years, Occupation Service [suspend],
                 R/o. Satana, Post Karmad,
                 Taluka and District Aurangabad.
                 At present R/o. Yogesh Nagar,
                 Ambad Road, Jalna,
                 Taluka and District Jalna.                           … Respondent
                                                                      [Ori. Accused]
                                                    …..
                            Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar, APP for the Appellant-State.
                            Mr. Pratik A. Bhosle, Advocate for the Respondent.
                                                    .....

                                            CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                            Reserved on         : 11.09.2026
                                            Pronounced on       : 21.09.2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.      Instant leave to file appeal by the State is in the backdrop of the

                 judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.07.2020 passed by learned

                 Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Special Case (ACB) No. 23 of

                 2016 acquitting present respondent from charge under Sections 7,

                 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC

                 Act].
                                                           ALS-111-2020
                                   -2-




2.    In short, prosecution was launched against the respondent on

the premise that, he was working as a Co-operative Officer in District

Milk Development Office, Jalna. According to prosecution, he

demanded bribe of Rs.25,000/- from complainant PW1 for disposing

off objection application raised against his election as Director of

Vishal Co-operative Fishery Society. Bribe was reported to ACB, which

further led to planning and executing trap, apprehending accused,

chargesheeting him and trying him vide above Special Case which

ultimately ended up in acquittal. As State is desirous in filing appeal,

leave is applied for, vide instant application.



3.    Learned APP took this Court through the testimonies of PW1

and PW2, who are complainant and shadow pancha respectively. He

took this Court through the cross of these witnesses and according to

him, the manner of cross and suggestions put therein by the defence

clearly show that there is no serious challenge to the prosecution

story. He pointed out that, after essential steps like verifying demand,

drawing pre-trap panchanama, laying main trap, the trap was

successful. According to him, there was conversation between

complainant and accused and its script was also on record. He would

thus submit that there was cogent, reliable and clinching evidence on
                                                         ALS-111-2020
                                 -3-

the point of both, demand as well as acceptance, and as such,

prosecution having proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, learned

trial court ought to have accepted the same. According to him,

unfortunately it has not so happened and there is incorrect

appreciation, misreading of evidence and ignoring the settled law.



4.    Learned APP further submitted that, testimony of complainant

found support and corroboration from independent witnesses like

shadow pacha as well as Investigating Office. But such crucial

evidence has not been correctly appreciated. According to him, there

is unwarranted acquittal by giving undue weightage to variance in the

timing of trap narrated by complainant and shadow pancha. On all

above counts, he prays for leave as, according to him, prosecution has

good case on merits in appeal. In support of such contention, he seeks

reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The

State of Kerala v. K. A. Abdul Rasheed, 2026 INSC 365.



5.    Learned counsel for the respondent-original accused would

support and justify the order of acquittal as according to him,

prosecution failed to prove demand as well as acceptance beyond

reasonable doubt.
                                                          ALS-111-2020
                                  -4-




6.    In the light of nature of charge, obviously evidence of

complainant, followed by that of the shadow pancha, is crucial and of

significance.



7.    Complainant PW1 in initial deposition stated that, he knew

accused, a Co-operative Officer. That, this witness won election and

was Director of Vishal Co-operative Fishery Society. One Gulab Pandu

Chavan had raised objection petition in the office of accused, of which

this witness had learnt from accused himself, and so he approached

accused on 25.02.2016. That time, accused demanded Rs.1,00,000/-

as bribe to settle the matter. On negotiations, figure was brought

down to Rs.25,000/-. That, accused was frequently calling him on

phone and therefore he approached ACB office on 16.03.2016 and

gave complaint Exhibit 8. In paragraph 2, he deposed about he being

introduced to pancha, they being given necessary instructions and

they carrying voice recorder during visit to the office of accused, but

not finding him there, he claims to have made phone call to accused

who allegedly called them near Hotel Siddharth and there, accused

questioned complainant whether he brought the amount which was

assured to be paid. Thereafter, in paragraph 3 he narrated the

procedure of application of anthracene powder to the currency notes
                                                         ALS-111-2020
                                 -5-

and necessary instructions being given to them by the P.I.         In

paragraph 4 he stated that again at 4.15 p.m. when they reached

Siddharth Hotel, again accused asked whether amount was brought,

and he took out the amount from his pocket and handed it to the

accused, who accepted it and kept it in his pocket, after which signal

was relayed.



      Above witness, while under cross, admitted in paragraph 6 that,

in the complaint Exhibit 8 there is no mention about initial demand

being raised by accused on 25.02.2016 and thereafter frequent

contacts by accused. He answered that, he had narrated details of the

conversation both, at the time of demand verification as well as the

main trap, but he is unable to state why it is missing from his

statement before police. In para 7 he admitted that, accused was not

empowered to decide the objection petition and he personally did not

ask accused to show him the objection petition.



8.    PW2 shadow pancha deposed about visiting ACB office,

meeting complainant, hearing his oral complaint, signing over

Exhibits 8 and 9 and then he and complainant proceeding towards

Collector Office with voice recorder and that, when they reached

there, accused was not present there and so they came back. Then
                                                           ALS-111-2020
                                  -6-

again complainant made contact with accused on phone, who

allegedly asked them to come near hotel Indrayani and so he again

accompanied complainant, and there discussion took place between

complainant    and   accused   during    which   accused     demanded

Rs.25,000/-as bribe which complainant agreed to pay and they came

back and informed the Investigating Officer about the incident and

trap was decided on the very day. In paragraph 2 he deposed about

procedure of application of anthracene powder to the currency. In

paragraph 3, he stated that he went with the complainant towards ST

Stand at around 6.00 p.m. and saw accused waiting outside Hotel

Siddharth. He stated that, then complainant handed over amount to

the accused and he accepted the same after which complainant gave

signal.



      Above witness also has faced cross wherein he admitted that,

verification panchanama Exhibit 13 itself shows that complainant

himself had opened the topic of amount. He admitted that, at the

time of conversation there was participation of other people around.

He further answered that, after verification they reached Investigating

Officer at around 5.30 p.m. but he was unable to state whether

verification panchanama was noted or not.
                                                              ALS-111-2020
                                    -7-

9.    It is squarely settled position that, it is incumbent upon

prosecution to establish both, demand as well as acceptance. Law is

also settled on the point that mere recovery or acceptance without

any demand has no significance and there are series of judgments on

this point. Thus, sine qua non is, firstly there has to be demand,

followed by acceptance. That, it is equally settled position that

complainant being interested party, corroboration from independent

witness shadow pancha is insisted for.



10.   In the light of above requirement, here, it is noticed that, firstly,

during first visit to the Collector office and even prior to that, it is the

story of complainant that, accused himself developed contact with

him to inform about the objection petition received against the

election won by complainant and even thereafter, it is alleged that,

after the first meeting accused made frequent phone calls to the

complainant. Even when complainant and shadow pancha went to

meet accused, it seems that as accused was not available, complainant

made phone call to accused to seek his whereabouts. Even

Investigating Officer in paragraph 3 of his evidence stated that

complainant talked with accused on phone. Therefore, apparently

there are several occasions on which complainant had developed

contact on telephone. If this was the case of prosecution, then
                                                         ALS-111-2020
                                 -8-

Investigating Officer ought to have gathered CDR to substantiate the

alleged frequent contacts by accused to complainant and even

contacts by complainant to accused. When complainant has deposed

that after it was agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- accused was making

contact to him frequently, it was bounde duty of Investigating Officer

to collect CDR/SDR to demonstrate and substantiate the same, but no

such exercise seems to have been undertaken by the Investigating

Officer.



11.   Though PW1 complainant deposed that there was demand of

bribe of Rs.25,000/-, PW2 shadow pancha in his evidence at Exhibit

12 para 3 of his chief itself has stated that when they reached the

vicinity of Siddharth Hotel, complainant handed over the amount to

the accused and he accepted it. Therefore, ex facie prior to any

demand by accused at Siddharth Hotel, according to this witness,

complainant handed over amount to the accused. This is where

prosecution suffered serious blow. As stated above, this witness was

crucial for prosecution and therefore he was expected to corroborate

complainant, but he does not seem to have done so. He has also

admitted in cross that, complainant himself opened the topic of

amount. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was

any demand .
                                                           ALS-111-2020
                                  -9-




12.   Learned APP would submit that, undue weightage is given to

the variance in the timing of events in the deposition of complainant

and shadow pancha. He would submit that, mismatch on timing is a

minor variance. However, it is not so. Considering the nature of

charge, it is the duty of prosecution to show that there is consistency

in the testimony of complainant and shadow pancha at least on the

material point of trap. Both these witnesses are not consistent as,

according to complainant, they went to meet accused in the vicinity of

ST Stand at around 4.15 p.m., but contrary to it, PW2 speaks that

they went around 6.00 p.m. PW2 in cross also admitted that,

verification was done at around 5.30 pm. Resultantly, witnesses are

not consistent.



13.   Though learned APP sought reliance on the judgment in State

of Kerala (Supra) it is on the point of proof of demand and

acceptance, which is as per settled position that, it is the sine qua non

to establish guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, and

there is no dispute to that extent. Further, the judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court is also on the point of giving weightage to hostile

witnesses and also on this count, there is no dispute. Here, in the

above discussion, it is noted that, testimony of complainant about
                                                      ALS-111-2020
                                 -10-

demand being raised by accused followed by handing over of cash is

not supported by PW2 shadow pancha, who directly deposed about

complainant handing over amount to accused prior to or without any

demand. Therefore, with such quality of evidence when the aspect of

demand itself comes under shadow of doubt, in the considered

opinion of this Court, no fault can be imputed to the conclusions

drawn by the trial court for acquitting the respondent. No good

ground being posed during hearing of this leave application, the

following order is passed :

                               ORDER

I.    Leave is refused.

II.   The application is dismissed.



                                        [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre