THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSAMBHAJI KHIRAPPA KHUPSE

2026:BHC-AUG:38127


                                                  {1}                    ALS-15-2020


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.15 OF 2020

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

                             Versus

                 Sambhaji Khirappa Khupse
                 Age: 50 years, Occu.: Service,
                 R/o. Government Quarter, Police Colony,
                 Mantha, Tq.Mantha, District Jalna.                ..Respondent
                                                                   (Ori. Accused)
                                                   ...
                 APP for Applicant : Mr.V.S.Badakh
                 Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Pratik Arvind Bhosle
                                                 ….
                                           CORAM :       ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                          RESERVED ON            : 21 AUGUST, 2026
                                          PRONOUNCED ON          : 24 AUGUST, 2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.    By invoking Section 378(1) clause (b) of the Cr.P.C., State has

                 preferred instant application praying for leave to file appeal against

                 judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 passed by learned Additional

                 Sessions Judge, Jalna in Special Case (ACB) No.23 of 2014.




                 2.     Learned APP pointed out that, respondent accused was
                                  {2}                   ALS-15-2020


prosecuted for charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act. That, he was working as a Police

Head Constable. That, for sending unserved report of warrant, there

was demand of Rs.5,000/- but amount was reduced to Rs.4,000/-.

That, even part payment of Rs.1,500/- was paid. As the complainant

was not willing to pay bribe, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau

(ACB). That, complaint was entertained by the ACB about demand

of illegal gratification.   That, demand verification was got done.

That, both PW1 complainant and PW3 shadow pancha are consistent.

However, minor variances on the timings are given undue importance

by the learned trial Court. That, there is both demand as well as

acceptance, but learned trial Court failed to appreciate the same and

thus, according to learned APP, there being a good case on merits, he

urges for leave to file appeal.




3.    Learned counsel for respondent accused would justify the

judgment and order of acquittal by pointing out that, firstly there was

voluntary handing over of amount without demand and as such,

demand itself was not proved.      That, moreover, witnesses on the

point of demand verification are improvising the version. That,
                                   {3}                     ALS-15-2020


learned trial Court has passed a well reasoned judgment and order,

and attention of the Court is invited to paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 16

and finally, it is prayed to reject the application for want of merits.




4.    Perused the papers.




5.    Evidence of PW1 complainant Babarao Pralhad Rathod is at

exh.16 wherein he deposed that, accused was entrusted with work of

executing warrant against Premdas Rathod (uncle of complainant).

That, for sending unserved report of warrant, there was demand of

bribe of Rs.4,000/-. That, Rs.1,500/- was paid and balance was to be

paid later on, but meanwhile, he lodged complaint exh.17.                 He

deposed about he and pancha witness made to carry voice recorder,

which was used for recording conversation.          That, accused asked

whether he brought balance amount and therefore, demand was

confirmed. Regarding the main trap, he deposed in paragraph 3 that,

he and pancha witness entered the Police Station, however,

immediately after entry, he took out the amount from pocket and

paid the amount to accused. Thus, apparently in examination-of-

chief itself, the complainant deposed that, there is voluntary payment
                                  {4}                 ALS-15-2020


prior to or without any demand.




6.    PW3 Pankaj Singatkar, shadow pancha has deposed at exh.21

that, he went with complainant to Mantha Police Station and

complainant has asked what happened about the warrant, at that

time, accused said that, he would see later, upon which, Rathod i.e.

complainant told him that it was agreed to do the work in Rs.4,000/-

and that he has already paid Rs.1,500/- and thereafter, Rathod asked

whether his uncle paid Rs.2,500/-, upon which accused told

complainant that, he should arrange balance amount first and

thereafter he would see about warrant.    Regarding main trap, he

deposed in paragraph 3 that, they reached Police Station at around

04:00 p.m. That, accused addressed uncle of PW1 complainant as

“Maharaj” and asked what was going on, upon which Rahod i.e.

PW1 told accused that Maharaj wants to give Rs.4,000/- as agreed

upon which accused said that, it was okay with him whatever

amount is paid and then complainant took out currency from his

pocket by his right hand and handed over to accused, who accepted

it.


      Thus, above witness PW3 shadow pancha is not deposing like
                                  {5}                  ALS-15-2020


PW1 complainant, rather as submitted, he has improvised the

version, which was not prosecution version.




7.    Therefore, here, when the sine qua non like demand itself is

not proved, entire case of prosecution collapses. Apparently, prior to

any demand, there is voluntary offer to pay bribe. With such quality

of evidence, learned trial Court, in the considered opinion of this

Court, has committed no error.          There being no merits in the

application, the same deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, following

order is passed :


                                ORDER


                    The application stands rejected.



                                        ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                               JUDGE

SPT