THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusANIL LAXMANRAO KULKARNI AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:25957


                                                  {1}                   ALS 2 OF 2025


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 2 OF 2025

                 .     The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Deputy Superintendent,
                       Anti-Corruption Bureau, Beed.              ….Applicant

                                   Versus

                 1.    Anil s/o Laxmanrao Kulkarni
                       Age: 56 years, Occu.: Talathi,
                       R/o. Mangalwar Peth, Kaij,
                       Tal.Kaij, Dist.Beed.

                 2.    Tulshiram s/o Jagannath Mukadam
                       Age: 51 years, Occu.: Labour,
                       R/o. Yusufwadgaon, Tal.Kaij,
                       Dist.Beed.                                 …..Respondents
                                                                  (Ori Accused)
                                                  …..
                 APP for Applicant : Ms.Vaishali Dama
                 Advocate for Respondent no.1 : Ms.Rupali D.Chinchpurkar
                 Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. Aditya Arun Puranik
                                                  …..

                                       CORAM :      ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                       RESERVED ON   : 15 JUNE, 2026
                                       PRONOUNCED ON : 17 JUNE, 2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.    This leave to file is on behalf of State, primarily getting

                 dissatisfied by judgment and order dated 18-07-2024 passed by

                 learned Special Judge, Kaij, District Beed in Special (ACB) Case No.5
                                   {2}                ALS 2 OF 2025


of 2023 acquitting present respondents from charges under Sections

7, 8, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.



2.    In trial Court, prosecution was launched against present

respondents, who are accused nos.1 and 2 and were Talathi and his

Assistant respectively. According to prosecution, when complainant

approached accused no.1 Talathi for mutating his name in the

revenue record on account of demise of his father, there was demand

of Rs.2,200/-.    Complainant approached Anti Corruption Bureau

(ACB) and lodged report resulting into planning and execution of

trap as well as apprehending accused and chargesheeting them for

above charges. During trial, prosecution has adduced evidence of

four witnesses and relied on documentary evidence, which was duly

appreciated by learned trial court, who refused to accept case of

prosecution as proved and acquitted the accused. Hence, instant

application for leave to file appeal.



3.    Learned APP would apprise this Court and reiterate its case in

trial court and would submit that, as there was demand of bribe, ACB

was approached by complainant. Prior to main trap, verification of
                                  {3}                    ALS 2 OF 2025


demand was got done and thereafter, main trap was laid and also

successfully executed.    According to her, script of conversation of

verification of demand, shows that there was demand. That, while

complainant and shadow pancha went together to accused, there was

demand followed by acceptance by accused nos.1 and 2. She points

out that, accused no.1 accepted his share as well as share of accused

no.2, his Assistant.     That, PW3 Sanctioning Authority was also

examined, but in spite of availability of overwhelming and

convincing evidence, accused are acquitted. That, State has a good

case on merits and therefore, she prays for leave to file appeal.



4.    Both learned counsel for both accused would justify the order

of acquittal on the ground that prosecution has miserably failed to

prove demand as well as acceptance.           It is pointed out that,

verification of demand was not proved by playing the recorded

conversation in the Court.      They pointed out that, evidence of

complainant is ambiguous.      That, he speaks of demand by both

accused at one and same time. That, both PW1 complainant and

PW2 shadow pancha are not consistent and story of PW2 shadow

pancha is at variance than the story of PW1 complainant.            They

pointed out that, sanction accorded is by incompetent authority and
                                 {4}                   ALS 2 OF 2025


for above reasons, they support judgment and order of acquittal.



5.    Record shows that in trial court prosecution rested its case on

the evidence of four witnesses I.e. PW1 complainant at exh.13, PW2

shadow pancha at exh.20, PW3 Sanctioning Authority at exh.29 and

PW4 Investigating Officer at exh.34.

      PW1 Complainant after stating that when he had been to office

of Talathi for mutating his name in place of his father, he deposed

that accused informed him that “fees” of Rs.3,000/- would be

required and on his request for reducing same, he was told that

Rs.2,000/- would be required for himself whereas his Assistant i.e.

accused no.2 would require Rs.200/- and as such Rs.2,200/- would

be required. Therefore, complainant approached ACB and lodged

complaint. Then, he deposed about shadow pancha PW2 Shaikh

Yunus meeting him and accompanying him to the office of Talathi.

But, here, as submitted, witness had stated that both accused, who

were present were asked by him to do his work and he himself seems

to have informed that he had brought the fees with him. Therefore,

there seems to be offer prior to any demand itself.

      While under cross-examination witness has admitted that

contents of complaint were narrated by maternal uncle of his wife
                                 {5}                    ALS 2 OF 2025


namely Bharat Puri.        Therefore, complaint is not by PW1

complainant.    He is also unable to remember whether he caused

signature or gave thumb impression.       In paragraph 16 of cross-

examination, he admitted that after entering Talathi office, he

immediately gave amount to accused no.1 asking him to do the work.

      Therefore, even in cross-examination, this witness admitted

offering money to accused no.1 prior to any demand. Above person

namely Bharat Puri is also not examined by prosecution.



6.    PW2      shadow   pancha     deposed    about    accompanying

complainant to Office of Talathi, but contrary to version of

complainant, who had stated about availability of accused no.1, he

deposed that accused no.1 Talathi was not available in the Office, but

accused no.2 was present and that accused no.1 came shortly after

which complainant had communication with him and then

complainant gave application, upon which, according to this witness,

accused no.1 demanded money for the said work and also further

asked complainant to have communication with accused no.2

regarding the work and hence, they both went to accused no.2.

Therefore, his story is not in consonance with story of PW1

complainant.    PW2 shadow pancha in paragraph 10 of cross-
                                 {6}                    ALS 2 OF 2025


examination has admitted that accused no.1 had not personally

demanded any fixed amount.



7.    Therefore, prima facie going through evidence of PW1

complainant and PW2 shadow pancha, they do not seem to be

consistent.   Moreover, PW1 complainant himself has offered bribe

prior to any demand by accused no.1.          As pointed out, PW1

complainant’s testimony is ambiguous as he has deposed about both

accused to be present and he asking both of them about his work and

according to him, they both together asked whether he had brought

fees. Therefore, essential aspect like demand itself has come under

shadow of doubt.     Consequently, mere possession in absence of

demand is of no significance.      As pointed out, conversation of

demand was itself not played before the Court for identification of

voice and conversation.



8.    PW3 Sanctioning Authority seems to be Residential Deputy

Collector, Osmanabad. Though he claims to be appointing authority,

he does not seem to have placed anything in black and white to that

extent. Going by his rank and the post held by accused no.1, it is the

Collector, who is the appointing authority and in cross-examination,
                                  {7}                   ALS 2 OF 2025


he has admitted about receiving letter from Collector alongwith

papers of investigation on 19-05-2016. Therefore, PW3 Sanctioning

Authority was not competent to accord sanction.



9.    Therefore, the net result of above discussion is that sine qua

non like demand is not proved. PW1 and PW2 i.e. complainant and

shadow pancha are not corroborating and lending support to each

other on material counts. Hence, learned trial court committed no

error in acquitting the accused as prosecution failed to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt.      No case being made out on merits to

accord leave, the application deserves to be rejected.           Hence,

following order :

                                ORDER


                    The application stands rejected.



                                        ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                               JUDGE

SPT