THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSANDIP S/O. BAPURAO NAROTE

2026:BHC-AUG:37760


                                                                            ALS-89-2019
                                                   -1-

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 89 OF 2019


                 The State of Maharashtra                          ... Applicant

                        Versus

                 Sandip s/o Bapurao Narute,
                 Age : 40 years, Occupation Service,
                 R/o Khalegaon, Taluka Georai,
                 District Beed.
                 At Present R/o Ambad, Taluka Ambad,
                 District Jalna.                                   ... Respondent

                                                   .....
                 Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for the Applicant-State.
                 Mr. Pratik A. Bhosle, Advocate for the Respondent (through VC)
                                                   .....

                                                CORAM :     ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                         RESERVED ON :      20.08.2026
                                     PRONOUNCED ON :        21.08.2026


                 ORDER :-


                 1.     As State is desirous and keen in filing appeal against judgment

                 and order of acquittal dated 04.01.2019 passed by learned Special

                 Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Special (PCA) Case

                 No.02 of 2018, instant application for leave to appeal has been

                 pressed into service.
                                                             ALS-89-2019
                                   -2-

2.    Learned APP pointed out that in Trial Court, prosecution was

lodged against accused/respondent herein for demanding bribe of

Rs.1000/- in the capacity as Talathi for taking mutation entry. That,

accordingly, complaint was received by ACB authorities, who planned

trap by engaging independent witness P.W.2. That, necessary

instructions were explained to them. There was use of voice recorder

for verification of demand and thereafter main trap was laid. There is

evidence of both complainant and shadow panch on the point of

demand as well as acceptance, but learned Trial Court failed to

consider and appreciate the same and refused to accept the case of

prosecution as proved.     That, according to learned APP there is

incorrect appreciation of evidence on the point of sanction also and as

State has good case on merits, leave to file appeal is urged for.



3.    In answer to above, learned Counsel for respondent/original

accused justified the judgment and order of acquittal by pointing out

that prosecution has miserably failed to prove sine qua non like

demand and acceptance. According to him, there was no demand.

Even prosecution witnesses including complainant has deposed about

offer of bribe prior to any demand. That, complainant himself has

stated that amount was kept on the table. Demand was said to be

paid in the form of gesture and there was no verbal demand. That, all
                                                          ALS-89-2019
                                  -3-

such crucial aspects prevailed over the Trial Court and thus, no error

is committed by learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused. For

want of merits, leave is urged to be refused.



4.    Heard. Perused the evidence before Trial Court.



5.    P.W.1 Ashok, the complainant, is examined at Exhibit-16. In the

initial testimony though he stated that he had approached accused

Talathi for mutating name of his father with regard to the well, and

though he has stated that accused demanded Rs.1000/-, however,

when exactly there was meeting between both of them and when

initial demand was raised, has not been stated by him.


6.    Though complainant speaks of he and panch made to carry

voice recorder at the time of demand verification, in paragraph No.2

of his examination-in-chief, he has deposed about accused making

indications through fingers like counting notes and raising one finger

above. Therefore, no concrete meaning can be derived by said

gestures. Further, regarding main trap, he has deposed in paragraph

No.4 of his examination-in-chief that after entering the office of

accused, he himself has asked accused whether he should give

Rs.1000/- or Rs.500/-. Thus, apparently, prior to any demand, there
                                                         ALS-89-2019
                                  -4-

is offer. Moreover, tainted currency is said to be kept on table and

thereafter, complainant has come out. In paragraph No.9 of his cross-

examination, omission is brought about accused making gestures.


7.    On going through the evidence of shadow panch P.W.2, he too

like complainant has stated about gestures made at the time of

demand verification by raising fingers. Even regarding main trap, he

deposed that when they approached accused, it is the complainant,

who told the accused that he has brought the amount which was

demanded. Thus, he also corroborates the complainant on the point

that the offer of bribe was made prior to the demand.


8.    Consequently, sine qua non like demand and acceptance are

not proved. Further, as pointed out, the prosecution has adduced the

evidence of P.W.3, the sanctioning authority. However, he was

apparently working as a Sub-Divisional Officer and, during his cross-

examination, he admitted that Exhibit-38 was the copy of the

appointment order, which is under the signature of the Collector.

Therefore, this witness was not competent to accord sanction. On this

count also, the case of the prosecution has collapsed.


9.    In the light of above discussion, there is no merit in the

application and no purpose would be served by according leave with
                                                         ALS-89-2019
                                  -5-

the above quality of evidence. No case being made out on merits,

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


                                ORDER


      I.    Application stands rejected.



                                        [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



scm