THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusNARAYAN LAXMAN SOLUNKE

2026:BHC-AUG:41976


                                                                           ALS-58-2021
                                                  -1-

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL BY STATE NO. 58 OF 2021

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through Deputy Superintendent of
                 Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,
                 Jalna.                                                 .. Applicant

                         Versus

                 Narayan s/o Laxman Solunke,
                 Age 44 years,
                 Occupation Service [now suspended],
                 R/o. Gulmohar Colony, N-5, P.17,
                 Cidco, Aurangabad,
                 Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.                              .. Respondent

                                                   …
                 Mrs. A. S. Mantri, Advocate for the applicant.
                 Mr. Pratik A. Bhosle, Advocate for the respondent (through V.C.).
                                                    ...

                                          CORAM :       ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                          Reserved on       : 10.09.2026
                                          Pronounced on     : 11.09.2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.      This leave to file appeal at the instance of State is in

                 consequence to the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned

                 Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalna in Special Case

                 (ACB) No. 29 of 2016 acquitting present respondent from offence

                 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

                 Act, 1988 (PC Act).
                                                            ALS-58-2021
                                  -2-

2.    PW1 approached ACB and filed complaint Exhibit 24 alleging

that for clearing his bill of construction work to the tune of

Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-, accused, a Gram Sevak, demanded

bribe of Rs.51,000/- i.e. for issuing Resolution regarding completion

of work. On receipt of such complaint ACB authorities planned and

executed trap by engaging pancha, giving them necessary instructions

and explaining them procedure. Accused was apprehended and tried

vide above Special Case but on appreciation and analysis of the

available evidence, he came to be acquitted.



      Dissatisfied by the same, State, who is keen in filing appeal, has

preferred instant application to seek leave.



3.    Learned APP would appraise this Court about prosecution story

in trial court. She would submit that, after hearing complainant’s

version about demand of bribe, ACB authorities summoned Pancha

PW2. That, they both were given necessary instructions. Verification

of demand was got done. Main trap was also successful. Accused was

apprehended with tainted currency. According to her, both,

complainant and shadow pancha, are consistent on the point of

demand and acceptance. That, there was valid sanction to prosecute

and authority to that extent was also examined. Thus, according to
                                                             ALS-58-2021
                                 -3-

her, essentials like demand and acceptance for attracting the charges

were very much available, but due to incorrect appreciation of

evidence and law, trial ended up in acquittal. That, State has a good

case on merits in appeal and hence, she prays to grant leave.



4.    Learned counsel for the respondent-accused justified the

acquittal by submitting that very demand has not been proved.

Witnesses, i.e. PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha, are not

consistent and as the sine qua non for attracting the charges were

patently missing from the prosecution evidence, he supports the

judgment and order of acquittal and prays to refuse leave.



5.    Heard. Perused the record. Case of prosecution is rested on the

evidence of four witnesses i.e. complainant, shadow pancha,

Investigating Officer and sanctioning authority. To ascertain whether

there was any demand, evidence of complainant and shadow pancha

is primarily to be visited.



6.    PW1 complainant, in his initial evidence, testified about

completion of construction work, bill to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- to

Rs.8,00,000/- to be pending and he approaching accused, a Gram

Sevak, to give Resolution in writing about completion of work. Then
                                                          ALS-58-2021
                                 -4-

he deposed that accused demanded Rs.51,000/- and so he

approached ACB. He deposed that, initially demand was got verified

by sending him with pancha. Then he stated that after reaching the

spot, he made phone call to the accused and then switched on the

recorder and kept it in his pocket. During conversation accused asked

him whether he brought the amount and he answered that he was

incapable to pay that much amount. Then accused again asked him as

to how much amount was with him, to which he replied as

Rs.10,000/-. Then he deposed that he and pancha came back and

informed the Investigating Officer, who conducted the procedure of

application of anthracene powder to the currency.



      In para 3 of his chief, he deposed the events of main trap which

took place at Yadgar Tea Stall in the vicinity of ST Bus Stand.

According to him, accused was already waiting for them and accused

asked him whether he brought the amount, he answered in

affirmative, took out the amount and handed it over to accused who

accepted it and thereafter predetermined signal was relayed.



      While under cross, he admitted that, it is the job of Executive

Engineer to allot work and handover funds to Grampanchayat. He

also admitted that, concerned Grampanchayat has to pass resolution
                                                            ALS-58-2021
                                 -5-

to release the amount and he denied whether any resolution was so

passed. Omission is brought in para 6 about he giving statement to

police that at the time of verification of demand, accused asked him

whether he brought the amount, and he replied that he cannot afford

that much amount, upon which accused posed counter question to

him as to how much did he bring, and he told accused about bringing

Rs.10,000/-. In para 7, he is unable to state how portion marked “A”

and “B” are appearing in his statement.



7.    PW2 is the shadow pancha and he is looked upon as an

independent witness and is expected to corroborate the complainant.

However, in his examination-in-chief he gave a very different story

than what was deposed by PW1 to the extent of conversation between

complainant and accused. In para 2, pancha deposed that at the time

of demand verification, when he and complainant reached the spot,

accused was already there waiting for them. In para 3 of the chief

itself he stated that around 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. when he and

complainant went to Yadgar Tea Stall, and on entering the hotel,

accused was already waiting for them. He deposed that, complainant

handed over tainted notes to accused who accepted it. Therefore,

such testimony of this witness clearly shows that prior to any demand,

complainant   has   passed    tainted     currency   to   the   accused.
                                                            ALS-58-2021
                                   -6-

Consequently, story of prosecution on the count of demand itself

comes under shadow of doubt.



8.    It is also noticed that, both witnesses are directly deposing

about accused to be present at Yadgar Hotel, but neither of them

deposed about such venue to be decided by accused and complainant

being called there with currency. Further, when there was telephonic

conversation between complainant and accused at the time of initial

demand, prosecution was expected to produce CDR to substantiate

the same. For above reasons, when demand itself is not proved

beyond reasonable doubt and when shadow pancha deposes about

complainant handing over tainted currency without any demand, case

of prosecution collapses. With such quality of evidence, no fault or

error can be attributed to the trial court in acquitting the accused. No

case being made out on merits to accord leave, following order is

passed:

                                  ORDER

I.    Leave refused.

II.   Application is dismissed.



                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre