THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusUMESH RAMRAO KAWALE

2026:BHC-AUG:46576


                                                                           ALS-156-2025
                                                   -1-

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 156 OF 2025

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Police Inspector,
                 Tophkhana Police Station,
                 District Ahmednagar.                                     .. Applicant

                         Versus

                 Umesh Ramrao Kawale
                 Age: 28 years, Occu.: Nil,
                 R/o. Plot No.103, Tulsai Residency,
                 Ekvira Chowk Pipeline Road,
                 Ahmednagar.
                 Nalle Plotting, Om Nagar,
                 Sai Road, Latur.                                         .. Respondent

                                                   …
                 Mr. V. S. Badakh, Advocate for the appellant/State.
                 Mr. Rajendra P. Phatke, Advocate for the respondent.
                                                   ...

                                                 CORAM :     ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                 Reserved on : 05.10.2026
                                                 Pronounced on : 06.10.2026

                 ORDER :-

                 1.      Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated

                 03.10.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar in Special

                 Case No. 8 of 2015, acquitting present respondent from charges under

                 Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

                 1988 (PC Act), the State hereby seeks leave to file appeal.
                                                           ALS-156-2025
                                   -2-

2.    Learned APP would point out that, accused was Food Safety

Inspector. That, he had demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- from

complainant for conducting business of sale of mango without license.

That, complaint to that extent was received by ACB authorities and

trap was planned and laid. There was demand verification got done

prior to the main trap. That, there was both, demand as well as

acceptance. However, learned trial court acquitted the accused. That,

there is incorrect appreciation of evidence by the trial court and

impugned judgment is patently illegal. That, State has good case on

merits in appeal and therefore, he urges for grant of leave.



3.    Learned counsel for respondent would submit that prosecution

failed to prove essential like demand. That, even sanction was not

valid and by competent authority and therefore, for want of merits, he

prays to reject the application.



4.    Perused the papers. Case of prosecution seems to be rested on

the evidence of four witnesses. According to prosecution, accused

who    was   Food    Safety   Offier,    demanded   Rs.15,000/-   from

complainant for conducting uninterrupted business of sale of mango.

PW1 complainant approached ACB who, after summoning PW2

shadow pancha, had carried out trap.
                                                       ALS-156-2025
                                 -3-




5.     On going through evidence of PW1 complainant at Exhibit 17,

more particularly para 1, it seems that on arrival of accused to the

complainant’s house, complainant introduced pancha as his elder

brother and seems to have directly asked accused as to ‘what is his

demand’. Thus, apparently, without any demand from accused,

complainant himself has asked to quote the amount. It has come in

his evidence that demand was also made by gestures. It has also come

in his evidence that, he had kept the envelop containing tainted

currency on the table which was allegedly later on picked up by

accused. Complainant in para 6 of his cross seems to have admitted

that he, on his own accord, opened dialogue with the accused about

demand of bribe. Thus, here, there is no demand which is sine qua

non.



6.     Likewise, PW2 who is examined at Exhibit 24, in para 3 of his

chief stated that complainant asked accused to state what he wanted.

Consequently, there is no demand by accused.



7.     Similarly testimony of PW4 Sanctioning Authority shows that

he was a Deputy Secretary ranking officer and moreover, he has

caused signature on draft received from Minister. In para 3 of the
                                                          ALS-156-2025
                                  -4-

cross, he admitted that he was subordinate to Principal Secretary and

moreover, he was not authorized to put signature on Exhibit 63. He

also admitted that, he issued sanction order only because Minister

had put his signature on the note sheet. Therefore, for such answers,

the aspect of application of mind also comes under shadow of doubt.



8.    Consequently, for above reasons, very demand as well as

acceptance comes under shadow of doubt. Similarly, sanction which

is also a crucial part, does not seem to be by a competent person.

With such quality of evidence, in the considered opinion of this Court,

no fruitful purpose would be served by according leave. Hence,

following order :

                               ORDER

I.    Leave is refused.

II.   Application stands rejected.



                                         [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre