THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusVITTHAL SITARAM SULANE

2026:BHC-AUG:37127


                                                                            ALS-36-2023
                                                   -1-

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.36 OF 2023

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through the Police Station Officer,
                 City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad.                   .. Appellant

                         Versus

                 Vitthal Sitaram Sulane
                 Age: 49 years, Occu.: Service,
                 R/o. Shrikrishna Nagar, Beed Bypass
                 Road, Deolai, Aurangabad.                                .. Respondent

                                                  …
                 Ms. Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for appellant/State.
                 Mr. Nitin K. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent.
                                                   ...

                                           CORAM         : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                      Reserved On   : 18.08.2026
                                      Pronounced On : 19.08.2026

                 ORDER :-

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

                 08.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act), Aurangabad in

                 Special (ACB) Case No.4 of 2011, as State is desirous of filing appeal,

                 instant application for leave to file appeal has been pressed into

                 service.


                 2.      Prosecution was lodged against present respondent on the

                 premise that he was working as Superintendent in the Government
                                                            ALS-36-2023
                                   -2-

Adult Disabled Training Institute. Informant P.W.2, after her transfer

to the said institute, had tendered her LPC and had requested to draw

her salary. According to prosecution, to do so, accused demanded

Rs.3,000/- and finally, on negotiations, brought down the figure to

Rs.1,500/-. P.W.2 as was not ready to give bribe, approached Anti

Corruption Bureau (ACB) office, who planned and executed trap by

following due procedure. After the trap, accused was apprehended on

report of P.W.4. Complaint was lodged, which was investigated and

after gathering sufficient evidence, accused came to be charge-

sheeted and tried. Ultimately, the trial ended in acquittal. Hence, the

application for leave to appeal.


3.    Learned APP reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that

there is no dispute or denial that complainant as well as accused were

both public servants. That, there is no further dispute that they work

in the same institute at relevant time and accused being

Superintendent    was    responsible     for   drawing   salary.   That,

complainant, who was recently transferred from Ashti, Beed, had

tendered her last drawn salary certificate and had requested accused

to draw her salary. However, to do the needful, he demanded bribe.


.     She further pointed out that on receipt of complaint from P.W.2

regarding demand of illegal gratification, ACB authorities planned
                                                                 ALS-36-2023
                                  -3-

trap by engaging independent shadow panch i.e. P.W.3 and necessary

instructions were given to both complainant as well as panch. She

next submitted that prior to the main trap, demand verification was

done and in presence of shadow panch, accused had raised demand

and, therefore, only on getting confirmed, main trap was laid and

even during it, there was again demand as well as acceptance. Thus,

according to her prosecution had proved essentials like demand and

acceptance before the learned Trial Court, however, according to her,

there is incorrect appreciation of evidence.


.     She further submitted that, before filing charge-sheet against

the accused, sanction as required was obtained from P.W.1, who,

upon due application of mind, had granted sanction. Thus, according

to her, there was clinching evidence regarding demand followed by

acceptance and due sanction had also been obtained, however, the

learned Trial Court misread the evidence and erred in acquitting the

accused. According to her, the prosecution has a good case in appeal,

and, therefore, she urged that leave to file the appeal be granted.


4.    In answer to above, learned Counsel for respondent pointed out

that prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand or acceptance

of   bribe.   According   to   him,     there   are   material    variances,

contradictions and omissions in the testimony of prosecution
                                                          ALS-36-2023
                                  -4-

witnesses, more particularly, complainant, who had given different

version than what is reflected in the panchanamas i.e. pre-trap

panchanama and post-trap panchanama. According to him, the

amount of demand has not been stated by complainant and,

therefore, case of prosecution was itself rendered doubtful on the

point of demand.


.     After taking this Court through the observations of the learned

Trial Court in the judgment, he submitted that the learned Trial Court

has considered and appreciated the evidence in entirety and has

meticulously dealt with each and every aspect and rightly held that

prosecution has failed to bring home the charges and acquitted the

accused. Thus, according to him, there being no good case with the

prosecution on merits, he urges to refuse leave.


5.    Heard. Perused the papers under the impugned judgment.

Admittedly, complainant was working as Senior Clerk and accused

was working as Superintendent in the Government Adult Disabled

Training Institute. It appears that complainant was transferred from

Ashti, Beed to the said institute and she was further deputed in Zilla

Parishad. Complainant claims that she has tendered last drawn salary

certificate and had requested accused to draw her salary, but

according to her, accused demanded bribe of Rs.3,000/- for drawing
                                                            ALS-36-2023
                                  -5-

her salary and, on negotiations, the figure was brought down to

Rs.1,500/- and, therefore, she approached the ACB office.


6.    Complainant is examined as P.W.2, who testified at Exhibit-32

and narrated in paragraph No.3 of the examination-in-chief that, her

salary was due since 2009 and she has requested accused to draw her

salary, but he raised demand of Rs.3,000/- and finally settled the

amount at Rs.1,500/-. Her evidence shows that, upon receipt of the

written complaint, the ACB authorities initially decided to verify the

demand made by accused. P.W.3, the shadow panch, was directed to

accompany her. Regarding demand verification, she has deposed in

paragraph No.8 and regarding main trap, she has deposed in

paragraph No.10 of her examination-in-chief.


7.    P.W.3, the shadow panch, in her evidence at Exhibit-50, has

deposed in paragraph Nos.2, 3 and 4 of her examination-in-chief

regarding verification of demand. She too stated that, in her presence,

the accused questioned P.W.2 as to whether she had brought the

money. In paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of her examination-in-chief, she

has deposed about the main trap, during which there was again a

demand followed by acceptance.

8.    Therefore, prima facie, essentials like demand and acceptance

are forthcoming from the testimony of complainant as well as shadow
                                                           ALS-36-2023
                                  -6-

panch i.e. independent witness.


9.    From the testimony of P.W.1 Exhibit-26, it is revealed that after

studying investigation papers and on application of mind, sanction

has been accorded, which is identified at Exhibit-27. Therefore, all

the essential ingredients for attracting the charges are prima facie

available in the evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court.


10.   Perused the judgment sought to be impugned. The reasoning

part commences from paragraph No.15 onwards. The learned Trial

Court seems to have answered point No.1 on the point of sanction in

affirmative. However, while answering point Nos.2 and 3, on the

point of demand and acceptance, learned Trial Court has recorded its

conclusion from paragraph No.25 onwards. Much of the judgment

seems to be devoted on documentary evidence. Learned Trial Court

seems to have held that there is variance in the testimony of the

complainant and the panchanama of demand verification. It appears

that there are traces of anthracene powder suggesting acceptance. In

paragraph No.54 of the judgment, the finding has been recorded that

complainant has admitted that she hurriedly went after keeping the

bribe amount on the table, however, she again corrected herself and

stated that she gave the bribe amount to accused. Precisely, such

evidence has been doubted. Therefore, there is point to dealt, but in
                                                            ALS-36-2023
                                  -7-

appeal. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, prayers raised by

State deserves consideration. Hence, the following order is passed :-


                                ORDER


      I.     The Application stands allowed.


      II.    Leave is granted to the prosecution to file Appeal.


      III.   Registry to register the Appeal.


      IV.    Appeal stands admitted.


      V.     Call record and proceedings.


      VI.    Action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal

      Procedure be taken against the respondent to the satisfaction of

      the Trial Court.



                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



scm