THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSANJAY S/O. MADHAV DALAL

2026:BHC-AUG:38726


                                                                               ALS-136-2019
                                                        -1-

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.136 OF 2019

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through the Police Inspector,
                 Anti Corruption Bureau,
                 Aurangabad.                                                  .. Applicant

                        Versus

                 Sanjay s/o Madhav Dalal
                 Age: 60 years, Occu.: Service,
                 Asst. Manager, Maharashtra State,
                 Financial Corporation, Aurangabad.                           .. Respondent

                                                  …
                 Ms. Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for applicant/State.
                 Ms. Monica N. Bagwe, Advocate h/f Mr. C. P. Sengaonkar, Advocate
                 for respondent.
                                                   ...

                                                   CORAM :       ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                           RESERVED ON :         27.08.2026
                                        PRONOUNCED ON :          28.08.2026

                 ORDER :-

                 1.        Present application for leave to file appeal is at the instance of

                 State i.e. on account of judgment and order of acquittal passed by

                 learned     Special   Judge,    Anti     Corruption,   Aurangabad     dated

                 27.03.2019 in Special Case No.19 of 2009.


                 2.     Learned APP would point out that, there is no dispute or

                 challenge that, respondent/original accused was working as a public
                                                         ALS-136-2019
                                  -2-

servant i.e. Assistant Manager in Maharashtra State Financial

Corporation (MSFC). That, there is also no dispute that complainant

had borrowed loan for conducting business from the said office and

was expected to repay the loan. She pointed out that there was failure

to repay the said loan. However, Government had floated a scheme

for part payment for one time settlement. She pointed out that

accused demanded 50% of the amount that was to be waived on

availment of scheme. Then complainant told him that if he will have

to pay that much amount, then it will not be beneficial to him.

Thereafter, accused asked him to give Rs.50,000/- to obtain that

benefit. Then, amount was reduced to Rs.25,000/- and accused

accepted first installment of Rs.5,000/- and that remaining amount

was to be paid later on, but as complainant was not willing to pay the

bribe, he approached office of Anti Corruption Bureau and said

authority planned and executed trap.


3.    She further submitted that here both demand as well as

acceptance was proved by adducing evidence of complainant and

shadow panch. That, their testimonies have remained intact during

cross-examination, but still learned Trial Court held that demand and

acceptance is not cogently proved. According to her, such findings of

Trial Court are contrary to the evidence on record.
                                                          ALS-136-2019
                                   -3-

4.    On the point of sanction, it is her submission that PW3 was

examined, who was working as a Managing Director of MSFC. He had

stepped into the witness box and has deposed about studying the

papers and according sanction. However, according to her, the same

is also not correctly appreciated by the learned Trial Court and on

minor count of failure to place resolution, sanction is held to be

invalid.

      Thus, according to her, there are good grounds to be dealt in

appeal. She therefore sought leave to file appeal.


5.    Learned Counsel for respondent/accused, while justifying the

acquittal and opposing the application, would submit that prosecution

has failed to prove the very demand. That, shadow panch has also

admitted that there was no specific demand and, therefore, the

essentials being missing in the prosecution evidence, she justifies the

judgment and order of acquittal.


6.    She also pointed out that here very sanction was not valid and

was by incompetent authority. She pointed out that witness PW3 in

his examination-in-chief itself has stated that appointing and

removing authority was Board of Directors and not this witness and

moreover, there was no resolution and therefore, learned Trial Court

rightly questioned the competence of this witness to accord sanction.
                                                              ALS-136-2019
                                   -4-

For above reasons and for want of merits in the application, she urges

to refuse leave by rejecting the application.


7.     Heard. Perused the papers. It appears to be the case of the

prosecution that, for availing the benefit of the loan scheme, the

complainant had approached the accused, who was working as an

Assistant Manager with MSFC, and learnt about the scheme for

waiver of interest and agreed to avail the benefit thereof. According

to the prosecution, the accused demanded 50% of the amount to be

waived, which was stated to be in the range of Rs.2,00,000/- to

Rs.2,25,000/-. When the complainant expressed his unwillingness to

pay such amount, the accused allegedly demanded Rs.50,000/- and,

upon negotiation, the amount was reduced to Rs.25,000/-. An

amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid upfront; however, before the

remaining amount could be paid, the complainant approached the

ACB.


8.     In support of above case, prosecution has adduced evidence of

in all six witnesses. Going by the nature of charge, it is to be primarily

seen whether there is voluntary demand followed by acceptance and

it is so proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Further, it

is to be seen whether there is valid sanction to prosecute.
                                                         ALS-136-2019
                                 -5-

9.    Accordingly,   studied   the     evidence.   PW1   Complainant

Balasaheb, who is examined at Exhibit-29 on the point of demand,

has narrated in paragraph No.3 of his examination-in-chief that he

and panch, after reaching the office of accused, were called in cabin.

He claims to have asked the accused to complete his proposal, to

which the accused allegedly replied that the work would be

completed as agreed. However, he counter questioned complainant as

to whether he had brought the money, which was asked by him.

When it was answered in affirmative, he suggested going down the

stairs and there accused reached at later point of time, asked him to

give amount, which was handed over and duly accepted.


10.   Now, if evidence of shadow panch is visited to ascertain

whether he corroborates complainant to the above extent, it is noticed

that shadow panch PW2, in para 7 of his examination-in-chief,

deposed that when he and complainant were in front of District Office

of MITCON Consultancy, accused came there and questioned

complainant, why he was late and further said that he has charge of

Walzade and there is work load and to give what you brought and

complainant took out Rs.5,000/- and handed it to accused.


11.   Thus, as regards to demand is concerned, shadow panch does

not speak about demand of amount. Even in paragraph No.11 of his
                                                         ALS-136-2019
                                 -6-

cross-examination, he admitted that in the conversation there was no

specific mention about demand of bribe by accused.

      Consequently, there is no corroboration to the testimony of

complainant on the point of demand itself.


12.   As regards to sanction to prosecute is concerned, there is

evidence of PW3, who is examined at Exhibit-159. In examination-in-

chief after deposing that he was working as Managing Director of

MSFC, he himself testified that in respect of accused, who was

Assistant Manager, the appointing and removing authority was Board

of Directors and that, the board had studied his proposal and had

authorized him to grant sanction on behalf of Board. Thereafter, he

granted sanction.

      While under cross-examination, he is unable to state whether

any resolution has been passed by the Board of Directors in respect of

granting sanction for prosecution against the accused and whether

the same was sent to the ACB or not. He is also unable to remember

whether authority given by Board of Directors for authorizing him to

sign sanction on its behalf was forwarded to ACB or not. Resultantly,

as submitted, this witness was neither the appointing authority nor

the removing authority and, though he claimed to have been

authorized by the Board of Directors, there was no resolution to that
                                                              ALS-136-2019
                                   -7-

effect. Therefore, the sanction cannot be said to be valid.


13.   As the learned Trial Court appears to have considered and

appreciated the case advanced by each side meticulously and has

refused to accept the prosecution case, and as no patent perversity

has been brought to the notice of this Court so as to grant leave, the

application deserves to be rejected by refusing the leave. Hence, the

following order is passed :-


                                ORDER


            .      Application is rejected.



                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



scm