THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusANIL TRIMBAKRAO WANGUJARE

2026:BHC-AUG:38637


                                                                             ALS-84-2026
                                                    -1-

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 84 OF 2026

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through : Police Inspector,
                 Police Station, City Chowk,
                 District Aurangabad.                              … Applicant

                        Versus

                 Anil Trimbakrao Wangujare,
                 Age : 45 years, Occupation Service,
                 R/o. C/o. Shri Vinod Patil’s House,
                 Plot No. 22, Vinayak Housing Society, N-8,
                 CIDCO, Aurangabad,
                 District Aurangabad.                              … Respondent
                                                                [Original Accused]
                                                   …..
                              Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for the Applicant-State.
                         Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the sole Respondent.
                                                   .....

                                           CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                           Reserved on        : 24.08.2026
                                           Pronounced on      : 27.08.2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.     Dissatisfied by the judgment and order of acquittal dated

                 13.04.2026 passed by learned Special Judge-8 (PC Act), Aurangabad

                 in Special Case ACB No. 49 of 2016, acquitting the accused from

                 charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

                 Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), the State has preferred the instant

                 application seeking leave to file appeal.
                                                                    ALS-84-2026
                                        -2-

2.    Learned APP pointed out that, respondent-original accused was

indisputably a public servant. That, complainant also was a

Government     official.     It   is   submitted    that,   complainant     had

approached accused for fixation of his pay in view of a Government

Resolution issued by the State Government. That, for doing the said

needful, there was demand of Rs.10,000/- by way of bribe and on

negotiations, it was brought down to Rs.8,000/-, but as complainant

was not interested in satisfying the demand, he approached Anti

Corruption Bureau (ACB) and lodged report.



3.    Learned APP further submitted that, after receipt of complaint,

PW4    Investigating       Officer     planned     and   executed    trap   and

apprehended accused. According to him, the sine qua non like

demand and acceptance were proved by prosecution by adducing

evidence of the PW2 complainant, whose testimony was supported by

the PW3 shadow pancha, but learned trial court failed to comprehend

and appreciate it in correct perspective. That, there was valid sanction

and the authority who accorded sanction, was also examined but the

same has not been considered and thus, according to learned APP, as

the State has good case on merits in appeal, instant leave application

deserves to be granted.
                                                           ALS-84-2026
                                  -3-

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

would justify the order of acquittal by submitting that here, very

crucial aspect like demand itself has not been proved beyond

reasonable doubt. He pointed out that, exactly when initial demand

was made is not substantiated. He further pointed out that, there is

delayed reporting without any explanation. He further submitted that,

there is no corroboration to the testimony of complainant from the

shadow pancha who, though accompanied complainant, was not

party to the actual conversation of demand.



5.    As regards to the acceptance is concerned, he pointed out that

the amount was planted in the service book kept on the table while

accused was away to attend a phone call and that, prosecution

witnesses themselves are admitting to that extent. He pointed out

that, accused had merely picked up the fallen currency and had kept

it back in the service book unknowingly and therefore, anthracene

traces to his fingers are attributed to such act. Lastly he submitted

that, evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly of

complainant PW2 and shadow pancha PW3 is also full of material

omissions and learned trial court has rightly dealt with it in extensio

and therefore, he urges to refuse leave.
                                                             ALS-84-2026
                                   -4-




6.    After hearing the above submissions and on going through the

record, there seems to be challenge to the judgment and order of

acquittal of present respondent from above charges wherein

accusations were raised that, for fixing pay of the complainant he

demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- and finally, on negotiations, agreed to

accept Rs.8,000/-. Complainant has therefore approached ACB

authorities and filed complaint, leading into planning and execution

of trap.



7.    In view of the charge, evidence of complainant and shadow

pancha is of relevance and significance to ascertain as to whether

there is demand as well as acceptance.



8.    Evidence of complainant PW2 is at Exhibit 35. Initially he

stated about panchas being called and introduced to him and ACB

authority decided to verify the demand and gave necessary

instructions to him and shadow pancha PW3, who was made to

accompany complainant to the office of accused and they carried

voice recorder. In para 4, he deposed about the events that took place

after reaching the office, i.e. to the cabin of accused, who was initially

not present, but when he came and was informed that service book
                                                           ALS-84-2026
                                  -5-

was brought and to verify it, accused told him that he is visiting Beed

and to hand it over there during such visit. But in chief itself,

complainant stated that, he himself told accused that the amount of

Rs.10,000/- as informed by Bade is too much and that he is not in a

position to pay so much, upon which accused said to him, “ok”, and

used calculator to display the amount i.e. Rs.8,000/-. Thereafter he

and shadow pancha came back and then main trap was duly planned.

But again, during main trap, he deposed that after he and shadow

pancha went to the cabin of accused, complainant himself told that he

has brought service book as well as cash and requested to verify the

service book.



9.    Thus, as submitted, prior to any demand, there seems to be

offer of bribe by complainant himself and it is so evident from the

testimony of complainant.



10.   Now, if evidence of PW3 shadow pancha is put to scrutiny to

ascertain whether there is corroboration to the testimony of PW2, it is

noticed that, PW3 in para 4 of the chief stated that she accompanied

complainant to the office of accused, but on reaching there, though

she followed complainant towards the cabin of accused, the door was

closed after complainant entered the cabin and therefore, she stood
                                                         ALS-84-2026
                                 -6-

outside the cabin, and there was conversation between complainant

and accused inside the cabin for five minutes after which complainant

came out and called this witness inside the cabin of accused and this

witness occupied the chair opposite the accused. Then there were

talks between complainant and accused regarding verification of

service book and accused suggested some corrections in the service

book. This witness then stated that thereafter complainant himself

told accused that Mr. Bade has instructed about Rs.10,000/- and

requested accused to reduce the same, upon which accused allegedly

told him to reduce the amount by Rs.2,000/-, and then complainant

and shadow pancha came out.



      Regarding the main trap, she deposed in paragraph 5 i.e., about

visiting the cabin of accused and they occupying chairs opposite to

accused, complainant handing over service book to accused but was

further told to approach the Inward/Outward Section, after which she

and complainant went to the said Section, however while returning to

the cabin of     accused, accused instructed her to sit at the

Inward/Outward Section. In chief itself stated that, as she remained

outside the cabin, she is unaware as to what conversation took place

between complainant and accused.
                                                          ALS-84-2026
                                 -7-

11.   Thus, apparently, from above evidence of shadow pancha,

though she was in the company of complainant at the time of demand

verification as well as main trap, she was not party to the actual

conversation on the point of demand or acceptance which took place

between complainant and accused.



12.   Resultantly, here, the very essentials of demand and acceptance

are not cogently proved by the prosecution and there is no

corroboration to the testimony of complainant, whose above

discussed testimony itself shows that, prior to demand, he seems to

have offered bribe.



13.   With above quality of evidence, no fault can be found in the

judgment and order of acquittal. No good ground is made out so as to

accord leave. Hence, the following order :


                               ORDER

I.    Leave is refused.

II.   Application stands dismissed.



                                             [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre