THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSHRIDHAR UTTAMRAO VAKRE

2026:BHC-AUG:1686
                                                                               ALS-8-2022.odt




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 8 OF 2022

          The State of Maharashtra                     ...Applicant

                Versus

          Shridhar Uttamrao Vakre                      ...Respondents

                                             ***
           • Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Applicant/State
           • Mr. A. R. Devakate, Advocate for the Respondent
                                             ***

                                      CORAM         : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
                                      RESERVED ON   : JANUARY 16, 2026
                                      PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 17, 2026

          ORDER :

          1.          In this application, state has invoked provisions under

          Section 378(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure urging to grant leave to

          file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.10.2021

          passed by learned Special Judge, Beed in ACB Case No. 11/2015.


          2.          Learned   APP    would    apprise     this      Court   about      the

          background of the case that, for clearing bill allegedly tendered by

          complainant towards supply of grains for a period from November-

          December, 2013, accused, a clerk in the District Supply Office,

          demanded bribe by way of commission of 8% of the total cost of the bill.

          Complainant as was not willing to pay bribe, lodged report Exhibit 34,


                                         PAGE 1 OF 6
                                                              ALS-8-2022.odt




which was made the basis for investigation after planning trap. Learned

APP pointed out that, initially verification of demand was got done by

recording conversation in the tape reorder followed by drawing of pre-

trap panchnama. He submitted that, thereafter both complainant and

shadow panch, and independent witnesses were given necessary

instructions. They both had approached accused, who allegedly raised

demand and also accepted the bribe amount. Learned APP pointed out

that, there were anthracene traces substantiating acceptance. Thus,

according to learned APP, essential ingredients of the charges were

available, but the same has not been correctly appreciated by learned

Trial Court.


3.             He further pointed out that, here learned Trial Court had

held sanction to be valid but by adopting hyper technical approach,

acquitted the accused. He pointed out that, defence of accused is readily

accepted even when it was not probabilized. Moreover, there was

sufficient material to attract presumption under Section 20 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act to record guilt of the accused. He pointed

out that, acquittal was result of improper appreciation and non

consideration of settled legal position. For above reasons, he submits

that, as State has good case on merits in Appeal, he prays to grant

leave.


                                 PAGE 2 OF 6
                                                              ALS-8-2022.odt




4.         In answer to above, learned Counsel for Accused, who would

supports the judgment and order of acquittal, would point out that, the

prosecution has miserably failed to bring home charge. He pointed out

that, in fact no work found to be was pending with accused to accept the

case of prosecution regarding complainant approaching accused and he

further putting up demand of bribe. Learned Counsel pointed out that,

crucial aspect of very demand has not been substantiated by prosecution

and on this count, he took through the evidence of PW1 and 2 and the

cross and would submit that, these witnesses made statement before

the Trial Court that alleged demand was by way of gesture and there

was no oral demand. He pointed out that, complainant and shadow

panch witness are inconsistent and giving contrary versions on the

point of demand and, therefore, learned Trial Court rightly disbelieved

the case of prosecution on the point of demand. He pointed out that,

material contradictions, which have emerged in the evidence of

important witness PW 2 Shadow Panch, are got proved through

investigation officer. He pointed out that, in fact there was hand loan

transaction between complainant and accused and the very report

Exhibit 34 carries material to that extent. That, the amount accepted

were towards said transactions and not being bribe, he justifies the

acceptance of defence version by the Trial Court as to be probabilized


                               PAGE 3 OF 6
                                                                ALS-8-2022.odt




and for all above reasons, he prays to refuse leave for want of merits.


5.          On the line of above submissions, record is put to the

scrutiny.


6.          It is emerging that, on complaint of one Santosh Shehrao

Jogdand, ACB authorities planned and executed trap. Report was

received that, for clearing bill for supply of food grains, there was

demand of 8% of the bill amount. Part payment was said to be made and

before remaining amount is paid, ACB authorities entertained

complaint of PW1. Case of prosecution is rested on evidence of PW1

Complainant, PW2 Shadow Panch, PW 3 Sanctioning Authority, and

PW 4 Investigating Officer. It seems that, investigating machinery

initially got demand verified and also drew pre-trap panchanama i.e. by

recording   conversation   between     complainant    and   accused      and

thereafter made complainant and shadow panch go together to the office

of accused and to pay bribe on demand and relay necessary signal.

Evidence of PW1 Compaliant is at 32 and shadow panch 51. Attention

of this Court being invited to the cross of these two witnesses, it is

indeed and it is clearly emerging that, according to complainant,

accused put up oral demand, however, according to investigating officer,

complainant in his statement recorded post trap          had stated that

accused has demanded amount by way of gesture. Similarly, PW 2

                                PAGE 4 OF 6
                                                              ALS-8-2022.odt




shadow panch has also stated about gesture and moreover, his evidence

shows that he was not in the company of complainant during

conversation between complainant and accused and he has admitted

that he was away from both of them. Therefore, there is no

corroboration to the accept of very demand.


7.         Mere finding currency in the hand of accused would not

justify the acceptance of bribe amount unless demand is cogently

proved.


8.         Defence taken in Trial Court is that, there were hand loan

transaction between complainant and accused. As pointed out, by

learned Counsel for accused in report Exhibit 34 complainant has stated

about earlier acquaintance and transaction with accused and himself.

Therefore, when said defence of accused is not rendered doubtful,

learned Trial Court has committed no error in accepting said defence to

be probabilized.


9.         As regards to submissions raised before this Court by

learned APP regarding Trial Court failed to invoke Section 20 of the P.C.

Act, here, as stated above, the very foundational fact of demand itself

has come under shadow of doubt. Therefore, presumption under Section

20 was rightly not invoked by Trial Court and reason to that extent is



                               PAGE 5 OF 6
                                                                 ALS-8-2022.odt




also found to be assigned by Trial Judge.


10.           In the light of contrary versions of complainant and shadow

panch and the contradictions proved through investigating officer as

submitted, case of prosecution in Trial Court was itself weak. Therefore,

as no point is made out on merits to accord, the leave deserves to be

refused. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:

                                   ORDER

        (a)   Leave is refused.


        (b)   Application for leave to appeal stands rejected.



                                                (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh




                                  PAGE 6 OF 6