Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSUNIL MOTIRAM MEDHE AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- ABHAY S WAGHWASE
Holding
The court held that the prosecution evidence was insufficient and the sanction was invalid, therefore the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an application for leave to appeal an acquittal of Sunil Motiram Medhe, an Assistant Police Inspector, and Sanjay Auti, a transport businessman, who were charged under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding a Rs.5,000 bribe to file a chargesheet early and return seized motorcycle papers. The prosecution relied on four witnesses, including a shadow pancha, the sanctioning authority, the complainant, and the investigating officer, asserting that the demand was made by gestures and that the accused accepted the money. The defence argued that the sanction for prosecution was issued by an officer (Special Inspector General of Police) who lacked competence, as the appointing authority was the Director General of Police, and that the evidence of demand was inconsistent and doubtful. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the demand unproven and the sanction invalid, and the High Court upheld this acquittal, refusing to grant leave to appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved a demand and acceptance of a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Whether the sanction for prosecution was valid given the competence of the sanctioning authority.
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted in view of the acquittal and the evidentiary record.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 7
Subjects
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- bribe demand
- sanction validity
- acquittal
- leave to appeal
- police officer
- evidence of gestures
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:11809
{1} ALS 130 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 130 OF 2025
. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Parner Police Station,
Tq.Parner, District Ahmednagar. ..Appellant
Versus
1) Sunil Motiram Medhe
Age: 49 years, Occu.: API, Parner,
Police Station, Tq.Parner,
Dist. Ahmednagar,
R/o. Yashodhara Colony,
Plot No.36, T.V. Center, Aurangabad.
2) Sanjay Nanabhau Auti
Age: 34 years, Occu.: Business
of Transportation,
R/o. Bhairav Galli, Parner,
Tq. Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar. …..Respondents
…..
APP for Appellant : Mr.N.S.Takale
Advocate for Respondent no.1 : Mr. Joydeep Chatterji
Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Ms. Monica Rohit Dahat
…..
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 16 MARCH, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 18 MARCH, 2026
ORDER :
1. Dissatisfied by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by
the learned Judge, Special Court (ACB), Ahmednagar, in Special
{2} ALS 130 OF 2025
(ACB) Case No.11 of 2016, State has preferred instant application
seeking leave to file appeal.
2. Learned APP pointed out that, both accused were
chargesheeted for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with
13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on
allegations of demanding bribe for filing chargesheet early and for
returning papers of the motorcycle, which was seized in crime
against brother of informant. Learned APP further pointed out that,
prosecution has adduced evidence of four witnesses. He submitted
that PW1 is shadow pancha, PW2 is Sanctioning Authority, PW3 is
complainant and PW4 is Investigating Officer. According to him,
after receipt of complaint, ACB authorities summoned panchas,
introduced them with complainant. That, they made aware of the
application of anthracene powder. That, verification of demand got
done by tape-recording the voice conversation. That, thereafter, the
trap was laid. That, in spite of there being evidence of demand as
well as acceptance, there is acquittal. He took this Court through
the evidence of complainant and shadow pancha and observations of
learned trial Court in paragraph 31 of the impugned order.
{3} ALS 130 OF 2025
According to him, prosecution has a good case on merits in appeal.
Therefore, he urges for grant of leave to file appeal.
3. Learned counsel for respondents/original accused, justifies the
order of acquittal by pointing out that firstly sanction was by
authority, which was Special Inspector General of Police. That, the
documents show that appointment of accused no.1 was by Director
General of Police and therefore, coupled with this, there being non
application of mind while according sanction, sanction was held to be
invalid.
As regards to demand and acceptance is concerned, he pointed
out that, there is allegation of demand by way of gestures. That,
there is inconsistency in the evidence of complainant and shadow
pancha as regards to demand and acceptance. That, on above
counts, case of prosecution was apparently weak in the learned trial
Court. Hence, according to him, there is no infirmity in the order of
acquittal and therefore, he prays for rejection of the application.
4. Heard. Perused the papers. It seems that, it is the case of
{4} ALS 130 OF 2025
prosecution in the trial Court that, brother of complainant was
booked for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and
investigation of said crime was done by accused no.1. According to
prosecution, for filing chargesheet early and for returning the original
papers of the motorcycle seized in the crime, there was demand of
Rs.5,000/-. According to prosecution, accused no.1 directed
complainant to pay amount to accused no.2, who was a private
person. As many as four witnesses are examined by the prosecution,
which includes, PW1 shadow pancha, PW2 Sanctioning Authority,
PW3 complainant and PW4 Investigating Officer. Evidence of PW3
complainant and PW1 shadow pancha is of importance in view of
nature of charges.
5. As pointed out that PW3 complainant has deposed about
accused no.2 making gestures by rubbing fingers and asking
complainant about money. Even accused no.1 had allegedly made
similar gestures and asked complainant to give money to accused
no.2 and therefore, apparently, there is no verbal or oral demand and
rather there is demand by way of rubbing fingers. Secondly,
complainant in cross-examination is unable to state when he had
{5} ALS 130 OF 2025
been to Police Station and when he had approached accused no.1.
Therefore, regarding initial demand, there is doubt.
PW4 Investigating Officer seems to have specifically instructed
complainant not to pay bribe unless demand is raised, but here,
complainant seems to be repeatedly inducing accused no.1 to put up
demand and it is so emerging from the conversation. Consequently,
here, firstly demand, which is crucial one, itself is doubtful. During
the second demand, witness has admitted that there was demand by
way of gestures and moreover, accused no.1, who is a Police Officer,
has not raised the demand.
6. As regards to sanction is concerned, in cases of such nature,
grant of sanction assumes significance. It is also important that there
has to be application of mind while according sanction. Here, as
pointed out, Sanctioning Authority was of the rank of Special
Inspector General of Police whereas appointing authority was
Director General of Police. Therefore, even the sanction was
apparently by authority, who was incompetent to grant sanction.
Therefore, in the light of above discussed evidence, case of
prosecution is shrouded with doubt. Learned trial Court, with such
{6} ALS 130 OF 2025
quality of evidence, justified in according acquittal. No point was
made out on merits to grant leave, therefore, leave is refused.
Accordingly, following order is passed.
ORDER
Application is rejected.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
Checking your session…