SANJAY NAGENDRABUWA BHARATIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:42762


                                                                     CrAppeal-1125-2023
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1125 OF 2023

                 Sanjay Nagendrabuwa Bharati
                 Age: 48 years, Occu.: Service,
                 R/o.:C/o. Sayal Post Marlak,
                 Now C/o. Maroti Chandapure,
                 Shankar Gunj, Dharmabad,
                 Nanded.                                          ….Appellant
                                                            (Original Accused)
                             Versus

                 State of Maharashtra
                 Through Police Station Officer,
                 Umri Police Station, Taluka Umri,
                 District Nanded.                                 ….Respondent
                                                   …..
                 Mr. Satyajit S.Bora, Advocate for Appellant.
                 Mrs.Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for Respondent
                                                   .....

                                          CORAM :       ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                          Reserved on       : 09-09-2026
                                          Pronounced on     : 21-09-2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.    Appellant, a convict hereby challenges Judgment and order

                 dated 01-11-2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2,

                 Bhokar in Special ACB No.1 of 2018 recording guilt for offence under

                 Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
                                                    CrAppeal-1125-2023
                                   -2-

                    BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2.    In trial Court, case of prosecution was that, accused, who was a

Bailiff and was assigned with the duty of serving arrest warrant,

demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- from complainant, who was a

judgment debtor and had fallen in arrears of maintenance i.e. for

postponing date of his appearance before trial Court.            PW1

complainant as was not willing to pay bribe, approached Anti

Corruption Bureau (ACB) office, gave complaint Exh.24, on the basis

of which, ACB authorities planned trap, which according to

prosecution was successfully executed. After arrest of accused, he

was duly chargesheeted and tried by learned Additional Sessions

Judge-2, Bhokar and he came to be convicted for above offence.

Hence, the appeal by accused.


                           SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellant/Accused :

3.    Learned counsel for the appellant apprised this Court about

story of prosecution in trial Court. He would submit that, prosecution

has miserably failed to prove both; demand and acceptance.         He

pointed out that, both complainant as well as shadow pancha have

resiled, not supported prosecution and were cross-examined by

prosecution itself. Thus, according to him, there was no case at all
                                                     CrAppeal-1125-2023
                                  -3-

with prosecution. He also submitted that, Sanctioning Authority had

given vital admissions in cross-examination rendering the aspect of

application of mind to be doubtful.     For above reasons, he prays to

quash and set aside the impugned judgment by allowing appeal.

      Apart from placing written notes of arguments on record, he

sought reliance on the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

cases of Khaleel Ahmed v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 16 SCC 350;

State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede,

(2009) 15 SCC 200; C.M.Sharma v. State of A.P. Th. I.P., (2010) 15

SCC 1; Rangnath v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/1206/2024,

Pannalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 4 SCC 526;

and Yashwant Nanubhai Pingle v. State of Maharashtra (CBI), 1999

Cri. L.J. 1270.


On Behalf of State :

4.    Per contra, learned APP would submit that, though complainant

and shadow pancha, at a later point of testimony, did not support

prosecution, their initial part as was useful to the prosecution and it

being in consonance with prosecution story, more particularly, on the

point of demand and acceptance, the same was rightly relied by the

learned trial Court.   That, there is correct appreciation of available

evidence by the learned trial Court and there being no perversity or
                                                    CrAppeal-1125-2023
                                   -4-

illegality in the impugned judgment, she prays to dismiss the appeal

for want of merits.    Learned APP relied on the Judgments of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of The State of Kerala v. K.A.Bdul

Rasheed, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 374 and Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of

NCT of Delhi), 2022 Livelaw (SC) 1029.


                                 ANALYSIS

5.    In the light of above submissions, evidence on record is re-

appreciated and reanalyzed.       As usual, it is to be seen whether

essentials like demand and acceptance are cogently proved beyond

reasonable doubt. For ascertaining the same, obviously one has to

test the evidence of PW1 complainant followed by that of PW2

shadow pancha.        It is settled position that complainant being

interested party, corroboration from independent corner like shadow

pancha has to be insisted for.

      PW1 Madhav Mohan Wadikar has deposed at Exhibit 23 about

his wife filing a suit against him for maintenance and verdict going in

her favour According to him, on 27-07-2017, while he was out of the

town, accused, a Bailiff of Umri Court, had visited his house carrying

arrest warrant. When this witness returned home, he learnt about

said visit of Bailiff from his brother and that accused has passed his

mobile number by writing on a chit, which was handed over to his
                                                     CrAppeal-1125-2023
                                  -5-

daughter and therefore, he made a phone call to accused, who asked

him to call back in the afternoon as he was out for official work.

During second call, he was called at Umri Municipal Council and

there, he states that accused informed him about outstanding of

maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and arrest warrant

being issued against him, upon which he allegedly told accused to

take him along, but accused said to him that do not go to the Court,

give Rs.1,000/-, which is to be passed to the senior officer and date of

hearing will be got extended by two months. He told accused that he

would meet on 04-08-2017. However, as he was not willing to pay

bribe, he approached ACB and gave complaint Exhibit 24, based on

which, he testified that panchas were called, introduced to him, they

heard his story and they caused signature over complaint.

      In further testimony, he deposed about Investigating Officer

inserting SIM card in voice recorder machine. Witness stated that, he

is unable to remember exact conversation, but ultimately decided to

go and he set out to go to Umri at around 3:00 to 3:30 and reached

there at around 04:30 and he halted near Library at Umri, which was

located next to the Court. There, Investigating Officer asked him to

make a phone call to accused and said telephonic conversation was

recorded during which accused asked him to meet at Municipal

Council. Thereafter, as per instructions of the Investigating Officer,
                                                    CrAppeal-1125-2023
                                  -6-

on reaching the location, he was asked to tell accused to wait for half

an hour and that money would be brought. He deposed that, he was

not told what to specify regarding individual accompanying him and

then he was further told that, if he meets accused, to ask him to come

near Jeep. There again Investigating Officer gave instructions to him

and accordingly, he made a phone call to accused, who asked him to

meet near Yashwant School and accordingly, he went there and again

gave a call to accused, who said that he is on the way. After accused

arrived near the school, he asked complainant if he had brought the

money and it has answered in affirmative.

      After deposing to this extent, witness stated that he does not

recall what happened thereafter and therefore, with permission of

learned trial Court, PW1 complainant was cross-examined by

prosecution. However, it is noticed that, during cross-examination,

he has agreed and admitted all suggestions put to him by learned

Public Prosecutor like the person, who approached at the school, was

signaled to be accused, they spoke about his work for extension of

date by two months and accused demanded Rs.1,000/- from him,

upon which, he told that he would bring the money. He also admitted

that, accused demanded Rs.1,000/- from him near the school and he

was told that, money would be arranged in half an hour and then he

and pancha going towards the Police, who were waiting. Thereafter,
                                                     CrAppeal-1125-2023
                                  -7-

voice recorder was switched off and events being narrated to the

Investigating Officer in presence of pancha No.1 and that thereafter, it

was decided to conduct pre-trap proceedings.       In paragraph 6, he

deposed about handing over two currency notes of Rs.500/- each and

2 currency notes of Rs.100/- each and its numbered being noted. In

paragraph 7 and 8, he deposed about procedure of application of

anthracene powder to the currency and use of ultra violet lamp.

Again instructions being given by the Investigating Officer to

handover currency on demand. He also deposed that, instructions

were given in presence of panchas.       In paragraph 9, he deposed

about again SIM card being inserted in the voice recorder, which was

kept in his pocket and he and shadow pancha going towards eastern

gate of school and that, accused accepted bribe amount from him,

after which he gave predetermined signal and accused came to be

comprehended.

      Therefore, though this witness in initial part of examination-in-

chief stated that he met accused near Yashwant School and there

accused asked him whether he had brought money and on answering

in affirmative to that extent, thereafter, he could not recall further

events and in cross-examination at the hands of learned Public

Prosecutor, he has virtually admitted the very story of prosecution.

      In cross-examination by learned counsel for defence, this
                                                    CrAppeal-1125-2023
                                 -8-

witness has admitted that, accused submitted unserved warrant

report on 31-07-2017. He admitted that, he met first time to accused

at the time of main trap. He further admitted that, accused was called

near a Car and there, he told his name as Madhav Wadikar and kept

two currency notes of Rs.500/- in the pocket of the accused.


6.    Likewise, PW2 Dilip Gangadhar Zhudpe, shadow pancha also in

his evidence at Exhibit 30 deposed about going to ACB office,

agreeing to act as Pancha, meeting complainant, hearing him, but he

is unable to recall full name of complainant.      He deposed that,

complainant was asked to narrate his complaint orally during which

complainant narrated complaint in their presence, which was as per

the written complaint given to Investigating Officer. After deposing

that, the Investigating Officer brought digital voice recorder and one

Memory card being inserted in said recorder, learned trial Court has

noted demeanour of this witness as “Prosecution explained to the

witness five times and even Court explained to the witness 7 times

whether anything happened during the period in between verification

of complaint and bringing digital voice recorder after verification of

complaint, however, the witness did not state anything about what

had happened and he stated that “I do not remember what has

happened”.    Thereafter, it seems that, learned Public Prosecutor
                                                   CrAppeal-1125-2023
                                 -9-

sought permission of learned trial court to cross-examine his own

witness and in the cross-examination at the hands of learned Public

Prosecutor, he has admitted that both panchas signed on the written

complaint. He admitted that, it was decided to verify demand before

arranging trap. He further stated that a digital voice recorder would

be given to complainant and conversation between complainant and

accused would be recorded in the same. That, there was verification

about no previous conversation in the memory card. He admitted

that, they reached Umri where Investigating Officer instructed

complainant to make a phone call to accused with further instructions

to record conversation between complainant and accused.            In

paragraph 3, he admitted that complainant made a phone call to the

accused at 03:55 p.m. He admitted that, whatever conversation took

place between complainant and accused was recorded in voice

recorder. In paragraph 3, he has admitted the very conversation that

took place between complainant and accused, which was heard on

phone. In paragraph 8, he answered regarding main events which

took place near school at around 06:30 p.m. and he also admitted

about conversation again took place between complainant and

accused which was recorded. However, in paragraph 8, he answered

that accused made gestures by use of his right hand fingers and

thereafter, complainant took out amount from front pocket of right
                                                     CrAppeal-1125-2023
                                 -10-

side of his pant and held it before accused and accused accepted the

said amount.

      Thus, it is seen that this witness merely deposed in his

examination-in-chief about the events that took place at ACB office till

he agreeing to act as pancha and voice recorder being brought with

memory card and said card being inserted in voice recorder.          In

examination-in-chief, he has not stated about any pre-trap verification

being done or about accused making any demand in his presence. On

the contrary, in the cross-examination at the hands of learned APP,

he stated about some gestures were allegedly made by accused, after

which complainant gave amount to accused, who accepted it.

Therefore, gestures are presumed as demand by this witness and he

admits to that extent.


7.    Though, here, there is valid sanction, on the point of demand

and acceptance both; PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha in

their examination-in-chief, have not supported prosecution. Though

they admitted to every suggestions given by learned Public Prosecutor

during their cross-examination, it is particularly noticed that, PW2

shadow pancha, who is a crucial witness, in his examination-in-chief

has not stated about any events of demand raised by accused being

heard by him during conversation between complainant and accused,
                                                    CrAppeal-1125-2023
                                 -11-

rather he speaks about gestures being made at the time of main trap

and the complainant handing over amount to accused. Therefore,

with such quality of evidence, case of prosecution cannot be said to be

proved beyond reasonable doubt. As it is seen from above discussion,

both PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha were required to be

declared hostile and further cross-examined by learned Public

Prosecutor wherein every suggestions put to them are admitted by

them in mechanical manner.


8.    Consequently, for above reasons, case of prosecution cannot be

said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as both PW1 complainant

and PW2 shadow pancha have apparently not supported prosecution.


9.    I have gone through the rulings relied by the learned APP,

however, the facts in the said case and the case in hand are quite

distinguishable.


10.   Perused the judgment under challenge.       Learned trial Court

does not seem to have appreciated the aspect of PW2 shadow pancha

failing to depose in examination-in-chief about any demand being

raised in his presence. Even regarding main trap, this shadow pancha

deposed about gestures being made by accused with his right hand

index finger.   Thus, assumption cannot be directly drawn that he
                                                     CrAppeal-1125-2023
                                  -12-

meant demanding bribe.        Therefore, though learned trial Court

extensively dealt with numerous citations relied by the parties, the

crucial aspect of demand as stated by even complainant did not found

support from independent witness shadow pancha, and conviction

seems to have been recorded, which is an error committed by it.

Hence, indulgence is called for at the hands of this Court.

Accordingly, following order is passed :

                                ORDER

I.    The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

II.   The conviction awarded to the appellant Sanjay Nagendrabuwa
      Bharati by by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Bhokar, in
      Special ACB No.1 of 2018, under Sections 7, 13(2) of the
      Prevention of Corruption Act, on 01-11-2023 stands quashed and
      set aside.

III. The appellant Sanjay Nagendrabuwa Bharati stands acquitted of
      the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) of the Prevention
      of Corruption Act

IV. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.

V.    Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the appellant after
      the statutory period.

VI. It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order
      regarding disposal of muddemal.


                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
SPT