THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSUBHASH BHIKAJI KOLTE

2026:BHC-AUG:43074


                                                                              ALS-99-2021
                                                     -1-

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 99 OF 2021

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through Police Station In-charge,
                 Kadim Jalna Police Station,
                 Taluka and District Jalna.                         … Applicant

                        Versus

                 Subhash Bhikaji Kolte,
                 Age 48 years, Occupation Service,
                 R/o Jijamata Colony, House No.41,
                 Near Warkad Hospital, Jalna,
                 Taluka and District Jalna.                         … Respondent
                                                                     [Accused]
                                                   …..
                            Mrs. A. S. Mantri, APP for the Applicant-State.
                           Mr. Pratik A. Bhosle, Advocate for the Respondent.
                                                   .....

                                         CORAM :           ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         Reserved on           : 22.09.2026
                                         Pronounced on         : 23.09.2026

                 ORDER :


                 1.     Dissatisfied by the judgment and order of acquittal dated

                 22.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in

                 Special Case (PCA) No. 20 of 2017 acquitting the respondent herein

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

                 of Corruption Act, 1988 the State has preferred instant leave to file

                 appeal.
                                                           ALS-99-2021
                                  -2-




2.    Before trial court, case of prosecution was that, complainant,

who was a founder of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Magaswargiya Co-

operative Society, failed to carry out audit of the society every year.

According to prosecution, accused, an Auditor, made phone call to the

complainant and called him with necessary documents and on perusal

of the same, allegedly informed him that, on his report, the society of

complainant would become defunct and for issuing positive report,

Rs.1000/- per member would have to be paid. Realizing it to be a

bribe, complainant (PW1) approached ACB, who planned and

conducted trap and after apprehending accused, he was duly

chargesheeted and tried, but fate of the trial, as stated above, ended

up in acquittal. As State is keen in questioning the acquittal, instant

leave has been preferred.



3.    Learned APP would appraise this Court about the prosecution

story and would submit that, charges have been proved by

prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, on the strength of evidence of

complainant and shadow pancha. She would submit that, both these

witnesses are consistent and lending support to each other on the

aspect of demand and acceptance. That, there was recording of

conversation confirming demand. That, there was valid sanction after
                                                            ALS-99-2021
                                  -3-

due application of mind, however, still learned trial court misread the

evidence, failed to appreciate the law and acquitted the accused, and

as prosecution has good case, she urges for leave.



4.    Learned counsel for respondent, who justified the acquittal,

pointed out that prosecution miserably failed to establish the charges.

He pointed out that, when it was the case of prosecution that accused

himself called complainant to the office with documents by making

telephone call, it was expected of prosecution to substantiate the

same by placing CDR/SDR on record, but prosecution failed to do so.

He further pointed out that, complaint is silent about initial demand

and there is admission to that extent. According to him, shadow

pancha does not corroborate complainant and he is not deposing in

the manner in which complainant has deposed and they both are at

variance. For above reasons, he justifies the acquittal and prays to

refuse leave.



5.    Visited the record placed before this Court, i.e. evidence and

impugned judgment. It seems to be the case of prosecution that,

accused was an Auditor and for setting right the audit in which there

were lapses for not getting it done regularly every year, and for giving

positive report, there was demand of bribe. It appears that,
                                                              ALS-99-2021
                                  -4-

investigating machinery took steps to get demand verified by sending

complainant and shadow pancha with voice recorder. However, as

pointed out, on visiting evidence of complainant at Exhibit 20, he has

not deposed about when exactly initial demand was raised by

accused. As pointed out, when he claimed to have received phone call

from accused, calling him to the office and there raising demand, then

obviously, CDR/SDR was necessary to accept the above version. But,

here, investigating machinery failed to place it on record.



6.    Further, on going through the evidence of complainant and

shadow pancha, they are not found to be in tune with each other as

events narrated by shadow pancha regarding main trap are distinct.

According to complainant, trap was laid at around 5.00 p.m., but

contrary to it shadow pancha has given time as 3.30 p.m. Again,

according to complainant after visiting the office of accused, he said

that he would complete audit for the years 2017 to 2022 and then

demanded money which complainant gave and accused accepted.

But, shadow pancha PW2 does not speak about demand as he

deposed that there were talks between complainant and accused and

complainant handed over Rs.5000/- to the accused. Resultantly,

according to shadow pacha, there was no demand at all.
                                                                  ALS-99-2021
                                     -5-




7.    Further,   as    pointed   out,      when   exercise   of    recording

conversation was done, it was expected of prosecution to demonstrate

in the Court by playing the recorded conversation. But surprisingly

recorded conversation has not been played before trial court.



8.    In the light of above short comings in the story of prosecution,

and when initial demand, which is sine qua non, itself is not

substantiated, learned trial court committed no error in refusing to

accept the case of prosecution and acquit the accused. No good

ground being made out to grant leave, the following order is passed :


                                 ORDER

I.    Leave refused.

II.   The Application is rejected.



                                             [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre