THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSURESH SHIVRAJ SHETKAR AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:46578


                                                    {1}                    ALS-42-2025


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 42 OF 2025

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through Deputy Superintendent of
                 Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,
                 (ACB), Latur, District Latur.                              ..Applicant

                               Versus

                 1.      Suresh Shivraj Shetkar
                         Age: 50 years, Occu.: Police Inspector,
                         R/o. : Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur,
                         District Latur.

                 2.      Vijay @ Chotu Prataprao Gadkari
                         Age: 53 years, Occu.: Driving School Owner,
                         R/o. Datta Naar, Ausa Road, Latur.                 ..Respondent
                                                                       (Original Accused)
                                                  …..
                 Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for Applicant.
                 Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                 Ms. Monica Rohit Dahat, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                  …..

                                          CORAM :     ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                         RESERVED ON   : 05 OCTOBER, 2026
                                         PRONOUNCED ON : 06 OCTOBER, 2026
                 ORDER :


                 1.      Instant application for leave to file appeal by State is in

                 consequence to the judgment and order of acquittal dated

                 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Latur in Special

                 Case (ACB) No.02 of 2019, thereby acquitting the present
                                 {2}                    ALS-42-2025


respondents from offence under Sections 7, 12 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2.    Learned APP pointed out that accused No.1, a public servant,

demanded bribe from PW1 de facto complainant, who was working

as a Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Latur, to

settle the complaint received against de facto complainant from

private travel bus owner. Message of demand was passed to de facto

complainant through accused No.2. On receipt of complaint from de

facto complainant, ACB authorities planned trap. Learned APP

pointed out that demand verification was done by recording the

conversation on voice recorder. Report to that extent is positive. The

authority, who analyzed the voice recorder, has been examined by

prosecution and thus, according to learned APP, after due verification,

main trap was planned. It was also successfully executed. Learned

APP further pointed out that in support of its case, prosecution has

adduced evidence of in all 10 witnesses. That, evidence of de facto

complainant found support from the evidence of PW5 and PW7

Investigating Officer. Demand as well as acceptance was duly proved

by prosecution in Trial Court, but learned Trial Court failed to

consider and appreciate the said evidence and erred in acquitting the

accused by refusing to accept the case of prosecution. He would
                                  {3}                  ALS-42-2025


submit that prosecution has good case on merits in appeal and

therefore, he urges for grant of leave.

3.    Learned Counsel Mr. Chatterji and Ms. Dahat, appearing for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively,

supported the judgment and order of acquittal. They both

emphatically submitted that prosecution had miserably failed to

bring home the guilt of accused. They pointed out that, though

accused No.1 was undoubtedly a public servant, the entire demand

was attributed to accused No.2, who was not a public servant. That,

there was no material on record to establish any connection between

accused Nos.1 and 2. According to them, there was no demand at all

and prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 de facto complainant and PW2

shadow panch and evidence of prosecution witnesses is silent about

very crucial aspect of demand. Thus, according to them, mere

recovery is of no consequence and they took this Court through the

cross-examination of above witnesses and also through the judgment

of the learned Trial Court and ultimately, prayed to maintain the said

judgment by refusing leave for want of merits.

4.    Heard. Perused the papers. In the present case, the prosecution

has adduced the evidence of PW1, the de facto complainant, at

Exhibit-50; PW2, the shadow panch, at Exhibit-55; PW3, the panch
                                 {4}                    ALS-42-2025


witness to the voice recorder and panchnamas at Exhibits 64 and 65,

at Exhibit-61; PW4, the Scientific Officer, who analysed the voice

samples; PW5, the Watchman of the Government Rest House; PW6,

the Director General of Police, who accorded the sanction; PW7, the

Investigating Officer; PW8 and PW9, the Nodal Officers, who

gathered the details of the call records; and PW10, who is another

Investigating Officer.

5.    In view of the nature of the charges, it is incumbent upon the

prosecution to establish that there was a demand followed by

acceptance. These are the sine qua non for attracting the aforesaid

charges. In the present case, testimonies of PW1, the de facto

complainant, PW2 the shadow panch, and PW5 are crucial and

significant on the aspects of demand as well as acceptance.

6.    On going through the evidence of PW1, it is noticed that he

himself was working as a Motor Vehicle Inspector in the Regional

Transport Office, Latur. In his evidence at Exhibit-50, he deposed that

he knew accused No.2, Gadkari, who made a telephone call to him

suggesting that he meet him, as there was some urgent work.

Accordingly, the de facto complainant claims to have gone to the

Government Rest House, Latur, on 04.08.2017, where he claims that

accused No.2 told him to settle the complaint received from a travel
                                 {5}                    ALS-42-2025


bus owner against him with the ACB office. Accused No.2 further

suggested to the de facto complainant to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to

accused No.1 for settling the complaint. However, as pointed out by

the learned Counsel for the respondents, the aforesaid narrative

deposed by the de facto complainant in his evidence is missing from

the written complaint at Exhibit-51 submitted by him to the ACB

authorities. Similarly, though he deposed in his evidence about

approaching the DIG at Mumbai and handing over the CDR of the

conversation with accused No.2, which was thereafter played, the

complaint at Exhibit-51 is also silent on this aspect. Apparently, as

submitted, on 03.08.2017, there was only meeting between PW1 de

facto complainant and accused No.2 and after their conversation,

accused No.2 had left the Government Rest House. At that point of

time, accused No.1 had not come there and, therefore, there was no

meeting between PW1 de facto complainant and accused No.1.

Further, the de facto complainant has stated that, as instructed by the

Investigating Officer, he went inside the office of accused No.2,

handed over the packet containing the tainted currency, came out,

and gave the signal. However, he does not speak about any demand

being made even by accused No.2.
                               {6}                   ALS-42-2025


7.    Again, as pointed out, while PW1 de facto complainant was in

the witness box, the learned Trial Court noted his conduct when he

was asked by the learned Prosecutor as to what happened after

accused No.2 was caught by the ACB. He answered that it merely

happened that much.

8.    PW2 deposed that PW1 got a phone call of accused No.2 and

the call was recorded on voice recorder and conversation between de

facto complainant and accused No.2 on mobile was recorded and

during such conversation, accused No.2 had asked de facto

complainant questioning him whether there was any conversation

between him and accused No.1 regarding money. Thereafter, PW1

told accused No.2 that he would not be able to pay amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-.However, the testimony of PW1 is silent about any

such conversation with accused No.2. Furthermore, it appears that

the alleged conversation was not played before the Court by the

prosecution. PW2 also deposed that de facto complainant got phone

call from accused No.1, who allegedly told him that he had not

forwarded the complaint to superiors and not to worry. Even so

called conversation on telephone was not played before the trial

Court.
                                {7}                   ALS-42-2025


9.    Resultantly, the crucial aspect of demand itself is not coming

on record. Apparently, there is nothing to connect accused No.1 and

accused No.2, except alleged several calls between them. To connect

them and to show that accused No.2 was acting at the instance of

accused No.1, there has to be convincing evidence, which is missing

in the present case. Hence, when demand itself is not proved, mere

acceptance or possession of the currency, that too from accused No.2

alone, in the absence of any evidence connecting accused Nos.1 and

2, is of no significance.

10.   Case of prosecution is that complainant had met accused Nos.1

and 2 at Government Rest House. PW5 seems to be examined in that

backdrop and he deposed that on 04.08.2017, while he was on duty,

around 10.30 to 11.30 a.m. accused No.2 came at Government Rest

House along with two unknown persons, sat for 10-15 minutes in a

room and had tea. According to him, when he went to clean the

other room and returned, by that time, those persons had left. He

identifies accused No.2 only and not accused No.1. Therefore, again

prosecution evidence points to the involvement of accused No.2 only.

11.   What emerges from the evidence available on record is that the

prosecution story that accused No.1 demanded a bribe through

accused No.2 has not been substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.
                                  {8}                    ALS-42-2025


At the threshold, there is no iota of evidence, except the telephonic

call records, to establish that accused Nos.1 and 2 were acting in

connivance with each other or had acted together. Admittedly,

accused No.1 did not accept any bribe. There is also no convincing

evidence to establish that accused No.1 had demanded a bribe from

the de facto complainant.

12.   With above quality of evidence, this Court does not find that

any fruitful purpose would be served by according leave. Hence,

leave refused. Hence, the following order is passed :-

                                ORDER

            .      Application is rejected.



                                        ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                               JUDGE

scm