THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusDR. RAJENDRA BALU PATIL

2026:BHC-AUG:5135

                                                 -1-                       ALS-92-2025

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.92 OF 2025

              The State of Maharashtra                               … Applicant

                     Versus

              Dr. Rajendra Balu Patil,
              Age : 61 years, Occu. : Service,
              R/o. Vrundavan Nagar, Plot No. 211,
              Dongargaon Road, Shahada,
              Near Hasti Bank, Shahada,
              Dist. Nandurbar                                        … Respondent
                                                                       (Orig. Accused)
                                                ……
              Mr. S. G. Sangale, APP for Applicant – State.
              Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Respondent.
                                                ...…

                                                CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         RESERVED ON : 04 FEBRUARY 2026
                                     PRONOUNCED ON : 06 FEBRUARY 2026

              ORDER :


              1.           State by invoking section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal

              Procedure urges for grant of leave to question the judgment and order

              dated 08.05.2019 passed by learned Special Judge of ACB and Additional

              Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in ACB Special Case No. 14 of 2015 by which

              present respondent - original accused stood acquitted from charges under

              sections 7, 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of

              Corruption Act.
                                     -2-                     ALS-92-2025

2.           According to learned APP, on receipt of complain by PW2

complainant about demand of illegal gratification to the tune of

Rs.20,000/- for clearing subsidy received by complainant, investigating

machinery after summoning the independent panch witnesses, planned

trap. That, demand verification was got done by recording conversation

and thereafter main trap was planned. It was also successful. That, both

demand as well as acceptance were cogently proved, but according to

him, the same is not accepted by learned trial court solely on the ground

that PW2 complainant had not partially supported prosecution and the

entire case of prosecution has been disbelieved. He further pointed out

that, even evidence of sanctioning authority has been not appreciated

correctly. According to him, there is a good case on merits in appeal and

so he prays to allow leave to file appeal.



3.           Learned counsel for respondent would support the order of

acquittal and submitting that as very complainant had not supported,

crucial aspect of demand has not been proved. According to him, there

was no entire script of alleged conversation. Moreover, electronic

evidence on the point of recording of conversation was weak.       That,

entire conversation was not reflected in the script, and moreover,

according to him, for want of natural sample of PW2 complainant, even

such evidence was rendered valueless. He pointed out that, sanction also
                                    -3-                      ALS-92-2025

is by unauthorized witness and for all above reasons, he justifies the

order of acquittal and prays to refuse leave.



4.           In the line of above submissions, evidence on record is

visited.   PW1 Shashank seems to be the sanctioning authority; PW2

Govind seems to be the complainant, who set law into motion; PW3

Shankar is the shadow panch;        PW4 Mayur seems to be the Police

Constable of ACB Office; PW5 Chandrashekar is an expert who issued

Hash Value certificate of the recording of voice samples; and PW6

Sahebrao is the another Investigating Officer.



5.           As there is no dispute that, the accused facing trial as a

public servant, it is at the threshold required to be tested whether

sanction to prosecute itself was valid as there is controversy to that

regard.



6.           On visiting evidence of PW1 Shashank at Exh.11, sanctioning

authority, witness seems to have given his designation as Dy Secretary,

Government of Maharashtra in Agriculture, Animal husbandry, Diary

Development and Fishery Department in Mantralaya. According to him,

he received all the relevant investigating papers pertaining to Crime

No.3011 of 2015 of Nandurbar City Police Station. He claims to have
                                   -4-                       ALS-92-2025

perused the papers and on getting satisfied about availability of prima

facie substance, he accorded sanction to prosecute. He further deposed

that, before sanctioning, he had also obtained sanction from the Ministry

of the above department and it was also further forwarded before Law

and Judiciary Department.


            While under cross, he has admitted that head of his

department is Secretary. He also admitted accused is the Class-I Officer.

On being confronted a Government Resolution as regards to clause 4-A in

view of the salary of employee exceeding Rs.10,650/-, sanction of Chief

Minister to prosecute the employee was necessary. He admitted that, he

did not obtain sanction from Chief Minister’s officer or In-charge

Minister. He admitted that, proposal letter Exh.12 is addressed to the

Secretary of Maharashtra. After deposing that he was directed by

Secretary to accord sanction, he admitted that he does not have any

document to indicate that he was asked to accord sanction. He also

admitted that Exh.18 shows that competent authority to accord sanction

is Secretary. Therefore, when this witness was not Secretary and was

rather Deputy Secretary, as submitted, sanction is not by authorized

person.



7.          Now, as regards to demand is concerned, it is settled law

that, for attracting the charges it is expected of prosecution to first
                                    -5-                        ALS-92-2025

substantiate that there was demand of bribe. Law is fairly settled that

mere possession of money is of no use unless demand of bribe is itself

proved. Here, PW2 complainant, who is examined at Exh.24, in his initial

part of testimony deposed that for obtaining balance of Rs.28,500/-,

when he visited office of Panchayat Samiti, accused demanded

Rs.20,000/- to clear the balance amount, but subsequently while

deposing regarding the events dated 25.02.2015, he started retracting

and answered that no instructions were given by Anti Corruption Bureau

office, they did not halt near the office of Panchayat Samiti and he denied

being given any voice recorder. He also denied that, it was agreed to pay

Rs.20,000/-. He denied accompanying panch witness, and therefore,

finding him testified to above extent, learned APP finally seems to have

cross examined his own witness very complainant i.e. after declaring him

hostile.



8.           What is seen from above testimony of complainant itself, it is

clear that, this witness has not supported prosecution, and consequently,

the crucial aspect of demand of bribe, which is the core of prosecution,

itself renders doubtful.



9.           Further, though shadow panch PW3 Shankar, an important

witness, was made to step into witness box and he testified at Exh.29

about attending Anti Corruption Bureau Office, being introduced to the
                                   -6-                       ALS-92-2025

complainant, hearing his story of demand of illegal gratification and

causing signature over the complaint, followed instructions by ACB office

regarding recording of conversation in voice recorder and accompanying

complainant and finding accused not available in the office, they both

returning back. Then he deposed about events that took place on

25.02.2015 regarding he accompanying complainant to the office of the

accused where, according to him, there was conversation between

complainant and accused, and accused demanding Rs.22,000/- for

clearing the balance, he and complainant returning and conversation

recorded in DVR being heard, and thereafter, script of conversation being

drawn. Regarding main trap he has testified in paragraph no.18, but here

again he stated that when he went with the complainant to the office of

accused, accused was not present in the office, and therefore,

complainant gave phone call on the mobile of accused and after

sometime accused coming. They proceeding near the statute of Shivaji

Maharaj and he deposed that he and complainant were facing towards

accused and that time complainant removed the tainted currency and

handed it to the accused, who allegedly accepted the same, which was

followed by relay of signal.



10.         Thus, what is emerging from above evidence is that on that

day, while this witness was in the company of complainant, there was no
                                       -7-                    ALS-92-2025

demand, and it is so evidence from his testimony from paragraph 18. This

witness merely stated that, not finding accused in the office, complainant

made call to him and after making such call, accused arriving there.

Here, he does not speak about any demand being raised by accused and

he rather states that, while and he and complainant were facing towards

accused near Shivaji Maharaj Statue, at that time, complainant on his

own handed over tainted currency to the accused. Thus, even from

testimony of this witness, aspect of demand is itself coming under

shadow of doubt.



11.          PW4 Mayur seems to be the Police Constable, who was

assigned the work of recording the conversation in DVR and drawing

script and issuing certificate 65-B.


             While under cross, he is unable to state in whose custody

Exh.50 was lying for a period from 28.02.2015 to 09.01.2018. He

admitted that, Exh.48 and 49, which are certificate of possession and

removal of hash value and conversation Exh.48 drawn from the memory

card, does not bear his signature. Therefore, the exercise of issuance of

65-B certificate is not free from doubt. For said reasons, case of

prosecution is rendered doubtful.


             PW5 Chandrashekhar also a police constable is on the same

lines as like PW4.
                                        -8-                         ALS-92-2025



                 PW6 Sahebrao is the Investigating Officer. While under

cross, he has admitted that, in this case, complainant had received

Rs.1,12,500/- by way of loan from Government and out of it, Rs.84,000/-

were received by cheque. He admitted that, after going through the rules

framed by Government on the point of same scheme, whatever amount is

to be disbursed is through cross cheque. He also admitted that he did not

come across during investigation that accused had authority to issue

cheque. Therefore, when accused was not authorized to do the work

expected by complainant, even the aspect of motives comes under

shadow of doubt.



12.              For all above reasons and on many counts as stated above,

the case of prosecution having been rendered doubtful, this court does

not find that any fruitful purpose would be served by according leave.

Hence, the following order is passed :

                                      ORDER

          (i)    Leave is refused.

          (ii)   Application for Leave to Appeal by State is rejected.



                                              (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)


Tandale