THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusDATTATRAYA S/O. MAHIPATRAO KULKARNI AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:39861


                                                    {1}                    ALS-19-2020


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.19 OF 2020

                 .      The State of Maharashtra,
                        Through Police Station Officer,
                        City Police Station, Beed,
                        Taluka and District Beed.                    ….Applicant

                                     Versus

                 1)     Dattatraya S/o. Mahipatrao Kulkarni
                        Age: 55 years, Occu.: Service,
                        Talathi, Sajja Shidod, R/o.Beed,
                        Taluka Beed, District Beed.

                 2)     Kalyan s/o Bhagwan Ghodake
                        Age: 55 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
                        R/o.Beed, Taluka Beed, District Beed.        ....Respondents
                                                                     (Org. Accused)
                                                 …..
                 Mr.V.S.Badakh, APP for Applicant.
                 Mr.Mrigesh D.Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondents.
                                                 …..

                                         CORAM :     ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                         RESERVED ON   : 01 SEPTEMBER, 2026
                                         PRONOUNCED ON : 02 SEPTEMBER, 2026
                 ORDER :


                 1.     Instant application for leave to file appeal is on behalf of State

                 getting dissatisfied by the judgment and order of acquittal dated

                 26-10-2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Beed in Special (ACB)

                 Case No.1 of 2013 acquitting the respondents from charges under
                                 {2}                      ALS-19-2020


Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).




2.    Prosecution was launched against respondents on receipt of

complaint from PW1 complainant that, when he approached accused

No.1 for mutating his name in 7/12 extract so as to enable him to

avail crop loan, it is alleged that demand of Rs.2,000/- was made.

Part payment of Rs.500/- was made and thereafter, PW1 complainant

approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), gave a complaint of

demand of bribe. In consequence to it, ACB authorities arranged

panchas, planned trap, undertook exercise of verification of demand

and finally, laid trap and apprehended accused no.1, who was Talathi

and accused no.2, who was his Assistant.         Both accused were

chargesheeted, tried, but finally acquitted by learned Special Judge,

Beed. Hence, leave application to file appeal by State.




3.    According to learned APP, accused no.1 was Talathi whereas

accused no.2 was his Assistant. That, on receipt of complaint from

PW1 complainant regarding demand of bribe of Rs.2,000/- for

mutating his name in 7/12 extract, ACB authorities summoned
                                {3}                   ALS-19-2020


independent witnesses, necessary instructions were given to both

complainant and shadow pancha and initially, demand verification

was got done by sending both of them to accused no.1 with voice

recorder.      That, accused no.1 raised demand of bribe while

complainant and shadow pancha were together.       Thereafter, main

trap was laid. That, even during main trap, there was demand by

accused no.1, but he directed bribe to be paid to accused no.2, who

accepted the bribe. Therefore, offence of demand and acceptance

was complete and it was duly proved by prosecution.        However,

according to him, evidence of complainant and shadow pancha has

not been correctly appreciated. He pointed out that, even learned

trial Court held that, there was invalid sanction even when witness

was examined to that extent.          Resultantly, he submits that,

prosecution has a good case in appeal and therefore, he urges to

grant leave.




4.    Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/accused would

submit that, here, prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand.

That, accused no.1 had not made any demand and it is also admitted

by prosecution witnesses i.e. complainant as well as shadow pancha.

That, there was said to be mere gestures of which no specific
                                   {4}                    ALS-19-2020


meaning could be gathered.         That, moreover there is nothing to

connect accused no.2 to accused no.1 and there is no evidence to

that extent. It is pointed out that, complainant has deposed that,

amount was directed to be paid to unknown person and therefore,

case of prosecution being not proved beyond reasonable doubt, he

justifies the order of acquittal passed by learned trial Court and prays

to refuse leave.




5.     Heard. Perused the record.




6.     In view of the nature of the charge, admittedly, it is incumbent

upon    prosecution   to   first   prove   that   there   was   demand.

Establishment of demand is sine qua non. If demand is not proved

beyond reasonable doubt, case of prosecution itself is rendered

doubtful.




7.     PW1 Mahendra Chintaman Kale, complainant, who has

deposed at exh.29, in paragraph 4 of the examination-in-chief stated

that, on 11-07-2012, when he approached with documents, accused

no.1 allegedly said to him that, he has to pay fees and further said
                                {5}                    ALS-19-2020


that, Government work is not done free of cost and said that

complainant will have to pay Rs.2,000/-. Rs.500/- were said to be

paid as part consideration, but admittedly, there is no corroboration

to such initial demand.

      In paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the examination-in-chief, he

deposed about approaching accused No.1 while in company of PW2

shadow pancha and carrying voice recorder to record conversation of

demand, but that day accused was not available and thereafter, he

and shadow pancha again visited the office of accused and events to

that extent are deposed in paragraph 14. But, here, he stated that,

accused No.1 said to him to pay bribe amount to unknown person by

pointing out to him and so he took out the bribe amount and paid to

unknown person, who accepted Rs.1,500/-.

      While under cross-examination, in paragraph 27, he answered

that, he is unable to remember whether he stated in the complaint

that when he approached accused No.1 after two days, accused No.1

told him that documents are not yet ready and to come later and he

further said that, he should come with Rs.1,500/- to get the

documents.
                                   {6}                   ALS-19-2020


8.    PW2 Amit Choukhe, shadow pancha, is examined at exh.43. In

paragraph 4 of his examination-in-chief he stated about the events in

ACB office after introduction of complainant and hearing his

complaint, they both carrying voice recorder, visiting the office of

accused, but on not finding him there, they returning and

panchanama being drawn.

      In paragraph 5 of his examination-in-chief he stated that he

and complainant entered the Talathi office, talks took place between

complainant and accused No.1 and complainant asked accused

whether his work is completed, but accused No.1 told him to go to

his Assistant and Assistant again told him to go to Talathi and further

Assistant told that, Circle Inspector had not arrived and thereafter, he

was told to prepare affidavit and again complainant came to accused

No.1, who asked to show the register and cause signature, after

which accused No.1 asked whether work of money is completed.

Again he asked complainant about the money after which

complainant told that his father is coming and his father would pay

the money.

      In paragraph 7 of his examination-in-chief, he stated that, they

again went to office of accused No.1 where accused No.1 and

complainant    had   talks   and   accused   No.1   asked    who       was
                                {7}                     ALS-19-2020


accompanying complainant and thereafter, accused No.1 made

gestures by hand to a person, who was standing there.

      Thus, as submitted, even during main trap, there was no verbal

demand and gestures are said to be made. As submitted, there is

nothing on record to show that accused no.2 was acting at the

instance of accused no.1. Mere gestures of pointing out are taken as

demand.




9.    As submitted by learned counsel for respondents, sanction is

also held to be not valid. PW3 Ganesh Keshav Nirhale, is the S.D.M.,

Beed and though he claimed to have empowered to appoint Talathi

and remove him and there being Government Resolution to that

effect dated 14-06-1984, while under cross-examination, he admitted

that photocopies were produced before him and he admitted that, in

the investigation papers perused by him, date of demand of bribe was

not reflected.




10.   Consequently, here, demand is not cogently proved.              PW1

complainant does not attribute demand to accused No.1. PW2

shadow pancha deposes about accused No.1 making gestures.
                                       {8}                       ALS-19-2020


Hence, sine qua non like demand is not proved beyond reasonable

doubt. As stated above, sanction is also not after due application of

mind. There is nothing on record to connect accused Nos.1 and 2.

When complainant himself in examination-in-chief stated that, he

paid money to unknown person, case of prosecution collapses.

      Therefore, with such quality of evidence and primarily demand

not being proved, coupled with aspect of sanction to be invalid,

learned   trial     Court    committed       no   error    in   acquitting     the

respondents/accused.         As no good ground is made out to accord

leave, application deserves to be rejected.           Accordingly, following

order is passed :

                                    ORDER


                            The application is rejected.




                                              ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                                     JUDGE

SPT