THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.versusCHANDRAKANT TUKARAM GHODKE.

2026:BHC-AUG:40125


                                                                   CriAppeal-106-2016
                                                 -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.106 OF 2016
                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through the Dy.S.P.
                 Anti Corruption Bureau,
                 Ahmednagar                                     ..Appellant
                             Versus
                 Chandrakant Tukaram Ghodke
                 Age: Years, Occu.: Service,
                 Section Engineer, Industry,
                 Energy and Labour Department,
                 Ahmednagar,
                 R/o. Ishwarkrupa, Shivsagar Nagar,
                 Plot No.3, Kedgaon, Ahmednagar                 ..Respondent
                                                  …..
                 Shri V.S. Badakh, APP for the Appellant/State.
                 Shri Rajendrraa S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel, a/w Ms. Rakshanda
                 Jaiswal i/b Shri Devang R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent.
                                                 …..
                                         CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         Reserved on      : 02-09-2026
                                         Pronounced on    : 03-09-2026
                 JUDGMENT :

                 1.    State challenges Judgment and order of acquittal dated

                 29-04-2015 passed by Special Judge, Ahmednagar in Special Case

                 (ACB) No.1 of 2012, acquitting respondent herein (original accused)

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

                 of Corruption Act (PC Act).


                                      FACTS OF CASE IN BRIEF

                 2.    Before trial Court, case of prosecution was that, accused
                                                      CriAppeal-106-2016
                                   -2-

demanded bribe of Rs.3,000/- for issuing positive inspection report

with regard to electric supply to factory of complainant. On report of

PW2 complainant, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities planned

trap, arranged shadow pancha, gave them necessary instructions and

demonstrations. Accused demanded bribe from complainant while he

was in company of shadow pancha and they accordingly gave

statements. Accused was chargesheeted and tried for above charge,

but he came to be acquitted. Hence, instant appeal.


                             SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant State :

3.       Learned APP would submit that, there is no dispute that

accused was working as Electrical Engineer. That, he had visited Unit

of complainant on 15-07-2010 and had carried out inspection of

factory premises and for issuing positive and favourable report, there

was demand of bribe of Rs.3,000/-. That, on receipt of complaint to

that extent, ACB authorities planned and successfully executed the

trap.


4.      It is further submitted that, both complainant as well as shadow

pancha, in their evidence, have deposed about the events that took

place at the time of main trap. That, both are lending support to each
                                                      CriAppeal-106-2016
                                  -3-

other on material count of demand as well as acceptance. However,

learned trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate the same and

took into account minor variances to doubt the prosecution story.


5.    He next submitted that, even authority, who was competent to

appoint and remove accused, was examined by prosecution. That, he

had applied his mind to all the investigation papers and thereafter, on

getting satisfied, sanction to prosecute was granted, but even the

same has not been considered. According to learned APP, there is

incorrect appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and so he

seeks indulgence at the hands of this Court.



On behalf of respondent/accused :

6.    Shri Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel for respondent would

justify the acquittal. According to him, prosecution failed to cogently

prove demand as well as acceptance. According to him, complainant

and shadow pancha are not consistent and they are at variance. He

pointed out that, specific defence of accused is that, the legal charges

were demanded and while handing it over, deliberately tainted

currency was planted and it was also accepted by accused believing it

to be legal charges.      That, defence to that extent has been

probabilized. Thus, according to him, learned trial Court committed
                                                    CriAppeal-106-2016
                                  -4-

no error in accepting the case of accused.



7.    He further submitted that, sanction is not by competent

authority and on this count, he took this Court through cross-

examination of PW1 Sanctioning Authority and would point out that

the same was correctly appreciated by learned trial Court and

according to him, once sanction is held as invalid, entire case of

prosecution gets knocked off at the bottom.


                    ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

8.    Re-appreciated the entire evidence. Trial court has acquitted

accused primarily on the grounds that, PW2 complainant and PW3

shadow pancha are at variance and secondly, there is invalid sanction.



9.    It is fairly settled position that, if sanction to prosecute is

invalid, entire case of prosecution collapses. Consequently, evidence

of PW1 Dhananjay Vitthal Dhavad, Sanctioning Authority is visited.

Said witness is examined at exh.12 and in examination-in-chief, he

deposed that, he was working as Secretary to Public Works

Department (P.W.D.) whereas accused was working as Class-II Officer

in Electricity Department of P.W.D. and he received papers from ACB,

went through the same and came to conclusion that it was a fit case
                                                       CriAppeal-106-2016
                                   -5-

to grant sanction.

      While under cross-examination, he admitted that in view of

G.R. dated 03-04-2000, sanction is to be accorded by Chief Minister

for employee whose basic salary is 12,500/- and above, and below it,

there has to be sanction by Dy. Chief Minister. He also admitted that,

for removing an employee, permission of concerned Minister is

necessary.

      Thus, in view of above evidence, there is question about

competence of this witness to accord sanction. Moreover, as pointed

out, he has volunteered in cross-examination that, he had dictated the

contents of sanction order exh.16, which were written on the basis of

summary forwarded to him. Therefore, his such answer renders the

aspect of application of independent mind doubtful. In the judgment

of trial Court, there is discussion on the point of sanction in paragraph

Nos.6 to 8.

      For above reasons, sanction cannot be said to be valid and

learned trial Court has rightly considered the same.


10.   Now, it is to be seen whether there is demand and acceptance.

Testimony of complainant PW2 Darshan Brijlal Soni is at exh.20 and

that of shadow pancha PW3 Subhash Maruti Gadade, is at exh.26.

      On going through PW2 complainant’s evidence, it is apparently
                                                     CriAppeal-106-2016
                                  -6-

emerging that regarding initial demand, there was said to be

telephonic conversation between accused and complainant as

complainant was not available during visit of accused to the Factory

premises.   Conversation was conducted on mobile phone of an

employee of complainant and even it appears that, during main trap

of which events are narrated in paragraph 3, there were repeated

telephonic conversations between complainant and accused till they

met at a hotel, but unfortunately CDR is not placed on record to

substantiate the same.


11.   Another feature of this case is that, according to complainant’s

deposition in paragraph No.3 of examination-in-chief, when he,

accused and shadow pancha met in a hotel to take tea, accused

initially told him that, charges per unit is Rs.800/- and towards three

units, it comes to Rs.2,400/- and therefore, complainant handed over

Rs.2,400/-, which accused accepted, after which accused took out

receipt book and handed over 3 receipts to complainant. Then he

states that, there was discussion and after paying tip to the waiter,

accused asked him to handover the amount as was agreed with him

and complainant counter questioned him what was the amount and

then he again corrected himself and stated that, accused has said that,

he received the amount towards receipt but what about him and he
                                                   CriAppeal-106-2016
                                  -7-

again asked him what was the amount to be paid and accused told

him to pay Rs.3,000/-.

      However, PW3 Subhash Maruti Gadade, shadow pancha

deposed in paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief regarding the

events at the main trap that, while complainant and accused took

coffee, there was discussion about rains and after complainant paid

tip to the waiter, according to him, accused said to complainant that

he has received fees but what about his amount.       Therefore, his

narrative is not like that of PW2 complainant.



12.   Here, specific defence of accused is that he had accepted the

amount towards the fees leviable per unit and under the garb of

paying it, tainted currency was also planted amongst the said fees

which he unknowingly accepted.

      On this count, testimony of PW2 complainant is seen and he, in

paragraph 7 of cross-examination, has admitted that, amount of

Rs.2,400/- plus Rs.3,000/- were found in the right hand side of the

pant pocket of accused.       PW3 shadow pancha also in cross-

examination has admitted that Rs.2,400/- as well as bribe amount

was kept in the same compartment of the wallet.         None of the

witnesses speak about accused counting currency after complainant

paid the legal fees of Rs.2,400/- towards three units of factory of
                                                     CriAppeal-106-2016
                                  -8-

complainant of which receipts were admittedly issued by accused.

Therefore, there is every possibility of inserting tainted currency in

the legally payable amount.



13.   For above reasons, here, prosecution story fails on three counts;

firstly, for want of sanction by competent authority, secondly, initial

demand was said to be on phone, however, there is no CDR to

substantiate the same, and thirdly, complainant and shadow pancha

being not consistent on material count. Therefore, learned trial Court

committed no error in acquitting the accused. In view of above

discussion, there being no good ground to interfere, appeal fails.

Accordingly, following order is passed :



                               ORDER

            The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.




                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
SPT