THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusANANDA PATILBA TUPE

2026:BHC-AUG:42919


                                                                                ALS-88-2026
                                                      -1-

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.88 OF 2026

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                 Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad,
                 District Aurangabad.                                         .. Applicant

                         Versus

                 Ananda Patilba Tupe,
                 Age: 55 years, Occu.: Service,
                 R/o. N-11, A-1, Yadavnagar,
                 L Sector, Hudco, Aurangabad,
                 District Aurangabad.                                         .. Respondent

                                                   …
                 Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for applicant/State.
                 Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for respondent.
                                                   ...

                                                   CORAM :      ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                   Reserved on : 21.09.2026
                                                   Pronounced on : 22.09.2026

                 ORDER :-

                 1.      This application for leave to file appeal by State is as a result of

                 the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.03.2026 passed by

                 learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in

                 Special ACB Case No.01 of 2013, acquitting the present respondent

                 from charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of

                 the Prevention of Corruption Act.
                                                            ALS-88-2026
                                  -2-


2.    According to learned APP, the accused was working as a Senior

Clerk in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. As the

matter of complainant was dismissed in default and for its restoration

when complainant had approached accused, there was demand of

Rs.1,000/- to restore the file. That, on receipt of complaint to that

extent, ACB authorities planned and executed trap. That, said trap

was also successful. That, prior to the main trap, demand verification

was got done followed by drawing pre-trap panchanama as well as

visit of complainant and shadow panch to the office of accused. That,

accused had demanded bribe. Complainant has deposed to that

extent. Shadow panch PW3, who in the company of PW2

complainant, was also party to the demand. Both complainant as well

as shadow panch are consistent on the point of demand. That,

recovery is from accused and thus, according to learned APP, there is

demand as well as acceptance. That, the learned trial Court has

noticed minor contradictions and variances in the testimony of the

complainant and the shadow panch and has consequently acquitted

the accused. That, there was a valid sanction, but the same has also

not been properly appreciated. According to the learned APP, the

State has a good case on merits and, therefore, leave is urged for.
                                                            ALS-88-2026
                                  -3-

3.    In answer to above, learned Counsel for the respondent submits

that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable

doubt. According to him, there is no corroboration to the testimony of

the complainant from the independent witness i.e. shadow panch.

That, in fact, there was offer prior to any demand, and that too twice.

Learned Counsel for the respondent took this Court through the cross-

examination of the complainant and the shadow panch and would

submit that there are vital admissions. Coupled with this, he pointed

out that the sanction is invalid for want of due application of mind.


4.    After considering the above submissions and on going through

the papers, it appears that prosecution was lodged against present

respondent by the State on accusations that in the capacity of Senior

Clerk in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, for

restoring the proceedings dismissed in default, there was demand of

Rs.1,000/- from complainant. As complainant was not willing to pay

the bribe, he approached ACB office and gave complaint. On receipt

of above complaint, ACB authorities summoned panchas, introduced

them to complainant. They heard the narrative of complainant and

signed over his complaint Exhibit-36. It appears that prior to the main

trap, Investigating Officer decided to get demand verification by

sending complainant and shadow panch with tape recorder.
                                                          ALS-88-2026
                                  -4-

Unfortunately, it seems that conversation between complainant and

accused was not recorded, but still panchanama was drawn.

Thereafter, complainant, in his evidence at Exhibit-35, in paragraph

No.3 of his examination-in-chief, narrated that when he and shadow

panch approached accused in his office and after accused was asked

by complainant about his work, there was said to be demand of

Rs.1,000/- and on such demand, complainant handed over tainted

currency, which was accepted by accused.


5.    It is fairly settled position that, complainant being interested

party in cases of such nature, corroboration is insisted for and

therefore, evidence of independent witness i.e. shadow panch PW3 is

required to be looked into. PW3 shadow panch, in his evidence at

Exhibit-56, deposed about he visiting ACB office, being introduced to

complainant, hearing his story and signing over the complaint. He

also deposed about he and complainant together going and carrying

tape recorder at the time of demand verification, but in his testimony

though he stated that accused demanded bribe, he fairly stated in

examination-in-chief   itself   that    said   conversation   between

complainant and accused was not recorded.


6.    As regards to main trap is concerned, he has deposed about the

events in paragraph No.6 of his examination-in-chief, wherein he
                                                           ALS-88-2026
                                  -5-

stated that after he visited office of the accused, when complainant

asked accused about the work, at that time, accused told him to send

his Advocate after which complainant agreed by saying “Ok” and

complainant himself, according to this witness, said that he will pay

Rs.1,000/- . Thus, shadow panch, as submitted by learned Counsel for

respondent, has offered bribe without any demand by accused.


7.    It is settled position that demand is sine qua non and mere

acceptance or recovery of tainted currency is of no significance. Here,

shadow panch, as stated above, has deposed about offer by

complainant without any demand from accused and, therefore, case

of prosecution suffers severe blow on such count itself. Therefore,

with such quality of evidence, though there is valid sanction and

acceptance, case cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable

doubt for above stated reasons. No case being made out on merits,

leave is refused. Hence, following order is passed :-


                                ORDER


            .      Application stands dismissed.



                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

scm