THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSANDU YESHWANT DONGRE

2026:BHC-AUG:43075


                                                  {1}                 ALS -54-2023


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 54 OF 2023

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Police Station In-charge,
                 Kadim Jalna, Tq.Jalna,
                 District Jalna.                                 ….Applicant

                              Versus

                 Sandu Yeshwant Dongre
                 Age: 48 years, Occu.: Service,
                 R/o. Govt. Quarter No.36/218,
                 Anandnagar Kotala Colony,
                 Aurangabad.                                     …..Respondent
                                                                 (Accused)
                                                 …..
                 Shri V.S.Badakh, APP for Applicant.
                 Shri Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms.Rakshanda
                 R.Jaiswal i/by. Mr.Devang R. Deshmukh, Advocates for Respondent.
                                                 …..

                                        CORAM :      ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                        RESERVED ON   : 22 SEPTEMBER, 2026
                                        PRONOUNCED ON : 23 SEPTEMBER, 2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.      Vide instant leave application, State seeks permission to

                 question Judgment and order of acquittal dated 05-01-2023 passed

                 by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalna in Special Case (PCA) No.15

                 of 2017 acquitting the accused from charges under Sections 7, 13(1)

                 (d), 13(2) of the PC Act.
                                 {2}                      ALS -54-2023


2.    Learned APP would point out that, respondent/original

accused was working as a Clerk in the Office of Assistant Charity

Commissioner.      That, for registering society of complainant, he

demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/-, of which complaint was received and

entertained by Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities. According

to learned counsel, thereafter, independent panchas were summoned

and   introduced    to   complainant   and   after    giving   necessary

instructions, exercise of verification of demand was got done in

which both complainant and shadow pancha were asked to go

together to meet accused by carrying voice recorder. It is pointed out

that, in presence of shadow pancha, accused has raised demand.

That, after hearing the conversation recorded in the voice recorder,

main trap was laid. He further pointed out that, during the main

trap also, both complainant and shadow pancha are consistent about

demand of bribe. That, accused was found in possession of tainted

currency and as such, there was acceptance.          Consequently, it is

submitted that, there is both demand as well as acceptance. That,

even sanctioning authority has been examined and therefore,

prosecution case was full-proof, but learned trial Court misread and

mis-appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused.              Thus,

according to him, State has a good case in appeal and so he seeks
                                {3}                  ALS -54-2023


leave to file appeal.



3.    Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent

would point out that, prosecution has miserably failed to prove

essentials like demand and acceptance.      He pointed out that,

according to complainant, initial demand was through Advocate and

he has learnt about demand from said Advocate, but said Advocate is

not examined.       He pointed out that, even very hand written

complaint of complainant is silent about demand of Rs.1,000/-. He

further pointed out that, witnesses i.e. complainant and shadow

pancha both speak about demand by gestures and there was no

verbal demand.     Learned Senior Counsel took this Court through

cross-examination faced by complainant as well as shadow pancha

and would point out that, there are material admissions rendering

the case of prosecution doubtful i.e. on the point of demand.

Consequently, he justifies the Judgment and order of acquittal and

prays to refuse leave.



4.    After hearing above submissions, evidence placed on record is

put to scrutiny. It appears that PW2 Santosh Tarachand Yadav is

complainant, PW1 Dadarao Kamluba Tangde is Shadow pancha and
                                 {4}                    ALS -54-2023


PW3 Adinath Vitthalrao Kashid is the Investigating Officer.



5.    In his testimony at Exhibit 45, complainant PW2 Santosh,

deposed that, he moved an application before the Office of Assistant

Charity Commissioner, Jalna, for registration of Uday Bahuuddeshiya

Sanstha and accused, who was a Clerk, was not inclined to register

and was rather expecting bribe from him. He deposed that, accused

demanded Rs.1,500/- for registration, but after negotiation, accused

agreed to accept Rs.1,000/- and therefore, as he was not willing to

pay bribe, he lodged complaint Exhibit 46 .


      In paragraph 3, he narrated the events which took place during

verification of demand i.e. he and shadow pancha going to office of

accused. He deposed that, accused pressed his thumb on the index

finger and asked him about money. Thus, there is no oral or verbal

demand and there is mere gestures.


      He further deposed that, when he and shadow pancha witness

returned and the Investigating Officer heard the conversation

recorded on voice recorder, it was not clear and therefore, they again

approached accused, but that time accused was not in his office and

rather was sitting in canteen. According to complainant, they had
                                {5}                    ALS -54-2023


tea with accused and he himself said to accused that he can pay only

Rs.300/- and accused agreed to accept Rs.300/-. Therefore,

apparently during the second visit at the canteen of which

conversation is recorded and clear, there is direct offer without any

demand in the canteen by accused.


      In cross-examination, complainant has admitted that, he had

engaged an Advocate for the purpose or registration and accused

demanded bribe through his Advocate first.          Admittedly, said

Advocate is not examined by prosecution to prove that there was

demand. Apparently complainant has learnt about initial demand

through his Advocate and there was no personal demand to

complainant. In further cross-examination, he has admitted that, his

hand written report Exhibit 46 is silent on the demand of bribe of

Rs.1,000/-.



6.    If we examine the evidence of shadow pancha PW1 Dadarao,

he also in his examination-in-chief has stated that, when he and

complainant went to verify demand by carrying voice recorder, at

that time, accused made gestures by pressing his thumb on the index

finger. Thus, even according to this witness, there are mere gestures

and no oral demand. This witness has stated what is not stated by
                                 {6}                  ALS -54-2023


complainant i.e. after seeing the gestures of accused, de facto

complainant said that amount can't be so much.         There is no

reference of amount. Even this witness has stated that during first

verification of demand, conversation was not clear.


      In paragraph 3, he deposed about second visit for verification

of demand that, de facto complainant asked accused what happened

about his work and accused asked de facto complainant to give

Rs.1,000/-, but complainant said that, he would give Rs.300/- and

accused nodded. In paragraph 5, he narrated about main trap and

here also he stated about accused pressing his thumb on the index

finger and demanding money.


      While under cross-examination, shadow pancha has admitted

in paragraph 8 that, demand of bribe was not clear during first

verification and he further candidly admitted that, de facto

complainant on his own has said to accused that he would give

Rs.300/- and not Rs.1,000/-. He also admitted that, in the script

Exhibit 37, accused had asked complainant to leave aside the subject

of money. He further admitted in paragraph 9 of cross-examination

that, de facto complainant himself has asked accused at the time of

main trap whether he should give money.
                                 {7}                      ALS -54-2023


7.    Thus apparently there is no demand and there are mere

gestures. Further during the main trap, prosecution own witnesses

admit in cross-examination that, de facto complainant himself offered

money without any demand raised by accused.             Therefore, such

evidence hits the prosecution story on the point of demand at the

bottom itself. When once demand is not proved beyond reasonable

doubt, entire prosecution story collapses.        Therefore, application

deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, following order is passed :


                               ORDER

                   The application is rejected.



                                       ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                              JUDGE
SPT