THE STATE OF MAHARASHRAversusRAOSAHEB BHIMRAO NEHARKAR

2026:BHC-AUG:23607


                                                                         ALS-88-2020
                                                   -1-

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL BY STATE NO. 88 OF 2020

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Anti Corruption Bureau,
                 Beed, District Beed.                            … Appellant

                         Versus

                 Raosaheb Bhimrao Neharkar,
                 Age : Adult, Occu : Service as
                 Police Head Constable,
                 Police Station Dharur,
                 Under Police Outpost Adas,
                 Taluka Kaij, District Beed.                     … Respondent
                                                                 (Orig. Accused)
                                                  …..
                 Mrs. Vaishali Dama, APP for Applicant-State.
                 Mr. M. S. Karad h/f Mr. A. D. Choure, Advocate for the Respondent.
                                                  .....

                                           CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                           Reserved on   : 12.06.2026
                                           Pronounced on : 17.06.2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.      Dissatisfied by the judgment and order of acquittal dated

                 22.10.2019 in Special Case No. 4 of 2012 passed by learned Special

                 Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, the State is hereby

                 seeking leave to file appeal.



                 2.      Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Beed entertained complaint of

                 PW1 Gorakh Jogdand that, for avoiding initiation of chapter
                                                             ALS-88-2020
                                   -2-

proceedings against his father for indulging in selling illicit liquor,

there was demand of Rs.1000/-. On the basis of said complaint, PW4

arranged pancha, gave necessary instructions and made shadow

pancha accompany complainant with voice recorder and after

conversation of demand was verified, main trap was laid during

which there was demand as well as acceptance by accused, who came

to be arrested and after investigation, chargesheeted and finally tried

by learned Special Court for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act]. By

judgment and order dated 22.10.2019, learned trial court acquitted

the accused from all the charges. Aggrieved by the same, intending to

file appeal, the State has preferred instant leave application.



3.    Learned APP would submit that, complainant, a mason, was

approached by accused, a constable, with a threat to implicate and

involve his father in sell of illicit liquor and to initiate action of

chapter proceedings and to avoid the same, bribe amount of

Rs.1000/- was demanded. She further pointed out that, on receipt of

complaint to that extent from PW1, trap was planned by ACB

authorities. She further pointed out that, prior to main trap, PW1

complainant was sent with shadow pancha PW2 for verification of

demand and they both had carried voice recorder in which
                                                          ALS-88-2020
                                   -3-

conversation between complainant and accused was recorded

comprising of demand and therefore, on ascertainment of demand, it

is her submission that, further trap was planned and also successfully

executed.



4.    According to her, complainant’s evidence finds support from the

evidence of shadow pancha PW2. That, they both are consistent on

the point of demand verification as well as demand made during main

trap by accused and tainted currency accepted by him. Therefore, it is

her submission that, essentials like demand and acceptance were duly

proved by prosecution. However, according to her, on a stray

admission of complainant that he had initially borrowed loan from

accused, learned trial court has accepted said defence raised by

accused and has acquitted the accused. She further pointed out that,

when trial court has itself observed that the testimony of complainant

and shadow pancha was consistent and inspiring confidence, then the

same ought to have been accepted and relied for returning guilt, but

learned trial court failed to do so. According to her, even when there

were no variances, trial court has attributed variances in the

testimony of complainant and shadow pancha. Thus, according to

her, there is incorrect appreciation of evidence.
                                                           ALS-88-2020
                                  -4-

5.    She further submitted that here, sanctioning authority was

examined as PW3 and even trial court recorded a finding that

sanction is perfectly legal and valid, but still case of prosecution is

disbelieved by raising doubt over testimony of complainant and

shadow pancha and rather accepting the defence. Consequently, it is

her submission that, prosecution has a good case on merits and so she

prays for leave to file appeal.



6.    In answer to above, learned counsel for accused, while

defending the judgment and order of acquittal, pointed out that,

demand and acceptance is not proved. According to him, amount

demanded and even accepted was a previous hand-loan transaction of

which there is admission by complainant. According to him,

complainant’s evidence has no corroboration. He therefore justifies

the order of acquittal and prays to refuse leave.



7.    In the light of above submissions, evidence on record is

examined. Case of prosecution seems to be rested on the testimony of

four witnesses, i.e. PW1 complainant at Exhibit 23; PW2 shadow

pancha at Exhibit 27; PW3 sanctioning authority at Exhibit 33 and

finally PW4 Investigating Officer at Exhibit 45.
                                                            ALS-88-2020
                                  -5-




8.    At this stage, it is to be seen whether there is demand as well as

acceptance and whether complainant’s testimony finds support and

corroboration from the shadow pancha as they together are party to

the event of demand as well as acceptance.



9.    Complainant in para 1 speaks about accused meeting him in the

vicinity of bus stand on 11.02.2012, inquiring about his father, further

saying that he is to be arrested for filing chapter case and if amount of

Rs.1000/- is paid, no action of chapter case would be taken.

Therefore, this witness approached ACB office Beed on 15.02.2012. In

para 2 he deposed about pancha PW2 accompanying him to the police

chowky with a voice recorder and during said conversation, accused

allegedly asked what happened about his Rs.1000/-, which

complainant claims to have assured to give him. After said

conversation in voice recorder was heard, he deposed the further

procedure taken by ACB authorities of applying anthracene powder to

the currency. In para 3 he narrated the events which again took place

at police station wherein he deposed that, he and PW2 entered police

chowky and that time accused asked what had happened about his

Rs.1000/-, to which complainant allegedly said that he shall give it

and he handed over Rs.1000/- to accused, which was accepted and
                                                         ALS-88-2020
                                 -6-

kept by accused in his right back pocket after which signal was

relayed followed by trap.



      This witness seems to have been cross-examined regarding his

visit to ACB office to lodge complaint. Questions are put about his

father, about second visit to police station and about events which

took place at police station, Dharur. In para 12, all suggestions are

denied but in para 13 he has admitted that, prior to the liquor case

against his father, 20 to 25 days back, when the owner of

construction work had been out of station, at that time he had

borrowed Rs.1000/- from accused and he had assured to return it.



10.   PW2 shadow pancha is examined at Exhibit 27. In initial chief,

he stated about visit to ACB office and meeting complainant who

narrated the complaint which was typed on a computer. He further

deposed about he accompanying complainant with a voice recorder,

about conversation between accused and complainant during which,

on question by complainant, accused had said that he has told as

“Rs.1000/-”, thereafter they approaching ACB officer and narrating

the events and even about preparation of CD of the conversation. In

para 5, he narrated the events that took place at police chowky, Adas

where again accused asked complainant whether photos are brought
                                                         ALS-88-2020
                                 -7-

and further questioned what happened about his Rs.1000/-, after

which complainant took out Rs.1000/-, paid it to accused who

accepted both the currencies and kept it in back pocket after which

signal was given.



      Though above witness is also subjected to extensive cross, he

has denied that when he and Shingade (PW4 IO) went inside,

Shingade asked accused about the money and accused told him that

complainant had taken hand-loan from him and he was returning the

said amount. Therefore, whatever admission is given by complainant

is denied by the independent witness.



11.   Learned trial court, as pointed out, has already considered and

accepted testimony of shadow pancha PW3 sanctioning authority and

sanction to be valid.



12.   On going through the impugned judgment, it is noticed that, in

para 30, observations are made that prosecution witnesses are

consistent with regard to sending PW1 and PW2 to accused for

verification of demand of bribe, but trial court, in subsequent

paragraphs has noticed certain variances in the testimony of

complainant and shadow pancha on the points of contents of
                                                            ALS-88-2020
                                     -8-

conversation and finally recorded finding in para 33 and 43 that

witnesses are not consistent on the point of demand. However prima

facie, from above discussed evidence of complainant and shadow

pancha, it is otherwise. Even when there was no ambiguity on the

point of quantum of bribe, contrary observations are made in para 34.

Therefore, there are points to be dealt in appeal and case to that

extent indeed is made out. Resultantly, this Court is inclined to grant

leave. Hence following order :

                                 ORDER

I.    Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses “A” and “C”.
II.   Leave is granted to file appeal.
III. Registry to register the appeal.
IV. Appeal stands admitted.
V.    Call record and proceedings.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre