THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSANJAY DATTATRAY MODWAN

2026:BHC-AUG:43444


                                                    {1}                   ALS -79-2021


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 79 OF 2021

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Police Inspector,
                 Police Station Kadim Jalna,
                 Tq. and District Jalna.                       ….Applicant

                               Versus

                 Sanjay Dattatray Modwan
                 Age: 53 years, Sectional Engineer,
                 Water Conservation Department,
                 Zilla Parishad, Jalna – Class – 2,
                 At present R/o Samarth Nagar,
                 Behind Zilla Parishad Office, Jalna,
                 Tq. and District Jalna.                        ….Respondent
                                                               (Ori, Accused)
                                                 …..
                 Mr.V.S.Badakh, APP for Applicant.
                 Mr.Pratik Arvind Bhosle. Advocate for Respondent.
                                                …..
                                           CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                           RESERVED ON   : 23 September, 2026
                                           PRONOUNCED ON : 24 September, 2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.      Present application is at the instance of State seeking leave to

                 file appeal to challenge judgment and order of acquittal dated

                 23-06-2021 passed by learned Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional

                 Sessions Judge, Jalna in Special (PCA) Case No.79 of 2019.
                                   {2}                    ALS -79-2021


2.    Before the trial Court, case was set up by prosecution that,

complainant, who was a contractor, had rendered irrigation work and

had tendered bills for sanction.         He received part payment of

Rs.73,000/- out of total bill amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and for

remaining amount, when he approached accused, who was a

Engineer, there was said to be demand of Rs.5,000/-. As complainant

was not willing to pay bribe, complaint to that effect was given to

Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities, who planned and

executed trap, apprehended accused and chargesheeted him, and he

was tried vide above special case.        The learned trial Court, after

appreciating entire oral and documentary evidence, acquitted

accused from the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act.


      Dissatisfied by above Judgment and order of acquittal, State is

keen in questioning the judgment by filing appeal and hence, instant

application for leave to file appeal.




3.    Learned APP would submit that, accused was working as

Engineer in Irrigation Department, Zilla Parishad. For sanctioning

bills of informant contractor, there was demand of bribe of
                                  {3}                   ALS -79-2021


Rs.5,000/-. That, on receipt of complaint to that extent from

informant, ACB authorities planned and executed trap and according

to learned APP, it was successful.      He would submit that, both

demand and acceptance were duly proved by prosecution from the

testimony of both complainant as well as shadow pancha and they

are lending support to each other. He would submit that, there is

also recovery of tainted currency from accused. That, there was no

challenge to the sanction to prosecute and therefore, it his

submission that, prosecution has duly proved the charges, but

learned trial Court misread the evidence and incorrectly appreciated

the same. According to him, prosecution has a good case on merits

and therefore, he urges for leave to file appeal.




4.    In answer to above, learned counsel for respondent/accused

would justify the order of acquittal by pointing out that, prosecution

has failed to prove the charges and therefore, learned trial Court has

rightly acquitted the accused. Therefore, he prays for rejection of

application.




5.    Visited the evidence adduced by prosecution.          PW1 Raju
                                 {4}                   ALS -79-2021


Pralhad Jadhav is Complainant and his evidence is at Exhibit 16

wherein he seems to have deposed that, he is a contractor and he had

carried out irrigation work in June 2017 and tendered bill to the tune

of Rs.1,20,000/-.    He recieved first installment to the tune of

Rs.73,000/- and for the balance amount, he visited the office of

accused and for issuing cheque of balance amount, there was seem to

be demand of Rs.5,000/-. He accordingly approached ACB.               He

narrated procedures undertaken by the Investigating Officer.

Regarding the events of main trap, he deposed that, he and PW2

Ramesh Gangadhar Thore, shadow pancha went to a hotel, took tea,

and at that time, accused allegedly asked whether payment is

brought and therefore, tainted currency was handed over to accused

followed by relaying of predetermined signal.




6.    However, PW2 Ramesh Gangadhar Thore, who is shadow

panch and looked upon a witness to corroborate complainant, in his

evidence at Exhibit 20 deposed that, he and complainant approached

accused at Zilla Parishad and according to him, complainant started

talking with accused and complainant questioned about his work

upon which accused allegedly said that higher authority is not in the
                                  {5}                    ALS -79-2021


office. However, thereafter, this shadow panch witness deposed that

complainant himself asked accused how much would be required to

be given. Thus, prior to any demand there seems to be an offer by

complainant. Therefore, his above testimony inflicts severe blow to

the prosecution. It is fairly settled position that, demand has to be

sufficiently proved and complainant, being an interested person,

corroboration is always insisted for, but here as stated above, prior to

any demand by accused, according to shadow pancha, complainant

had offered bribe.




7.    Another feature of this case as pointed out by learned counsel

for applicant is that, infact there was no work pending with accused

so as to readily accept the case of complainant about demand of

bribe from him. Complainant in his cross-examination has admitted

that, on 03-12-2018 accused had forwarded proposal for sanction of

the bills and on 21-02-2019 itself there were orders to the Tahsildar

to issue bills and he fairly admitted that, at such time, no work was

pending with accused.    However, still complaint is lodged with ACB

alleging demand of bribe when in fact no work was pending on the

said date.
                                 {6}                 ALS -79-2021


      For aforesaid reasons and with such quality of evidence, this

Court does not find it a fit case to accord leave to file appeal.

Accordingly following order is passed :


                               ORDER


                  The application is rejected.



                                       ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                              JUDGE

SPT