SANJAY SANJIVAYA MALOJI GHARGEversusTHE UNION OF INDIA

2026:BHC-AUG:43411


                                              *1*                  apeal2o14


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2 OF 2014

                Sanjay @ Sanjivaya Maloji Gharge
                Aged 49 years, Occu. Service as
                Junior Engineer, Military Engineering
                Services, Cantonment Board,
                Aurangabad.
                R/o Flat No.13, Amba Cooperative
                Society, Shikarewadi, Nashik Road,
                Nashik.
                                                     …APPELLANT
                                                     (Orig. accused)

                      -VERSUS-

                The Union of India.
                Through CBI,
                Anti Corruption Bureau,
                Pune.

                                                     ...RESPONDENT
                                               …
                Shri Nilesh S. Ghanekar, advocate for the appellant.
                Shri Sachin S. Panale, Standing Counsel for the respondent/ UoI.
                                               …

                                  CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                  Reserved on : 18 August 2026
                                  Pronounced on : 24 September 2026

                JUDGMENT :-

                1.          The appellant/ accused is challenging the judgment

                and order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the learned Special Court,

                Aurangabad, in Special Case (AC) No.13/2011, thereby
                               *2*                   apeal2o14


convicting the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)

read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. By the said judgment, the learned Special Court was

pleased to convict the appellant under Section 7, thereby

sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with

fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 6

months, and under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), rigorous

imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Both the sentences

were directed to run concurrently.


2.          The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-


      (a)   The appellant/ accused was working as Junior

Engineer (E and M) at the office of Assistant Garrison Engineer

(MES), Aurangabad. On 21.12.2010, he had demanded illegal

gratification of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant (PW-2) Danish

Mathew, a partner of M/s Sonu Enterprises, Aurangabad. The

accused being public servant, the aforesaid demand of bribe was

not a part of his official remuneration. Thus, the accused had

abused his official position by making the above demand to the

complainant for processing his bills of contract having total value
                               *3*                  apeal2o14


of Rs.4,80,000/-. From the bribe amount of Rs. 25,000/-, the

accused had demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the

complainant immediately and had accepted the same as a partial

fulfillment of demand. When the accused had made demand of

Rs.25,000/- from the complainant, it was agreed that Rs.10,000/-

was to be paid immediately and the remaining amount of

Rs.15,000/- was to be paid within period of 2 to 3 days.


      (b)   As the complainant (PW-2) Danish Mathew was not

willing to pay the bribe amount, he had submitted written

complaint against the appellant/ accused to the Superintendent of

Police / CBI (ACB, Pune) on 21.12.2010 for taking legal action.


      (c)   Accordingly, a trap was arranged when the accused

had asked Danish Matthew to meet him at the aforesaid purpose.

On 21.12.2010, the ACB Pune, acting through IO, had laid a trap

as narrated in pre-trap panchanama. When the complainant went

to the office/ cabin of the appellant/ accused on 21.12.2010 to

deliver the bribe amount to him, the accused had accepted the

bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- after making demand of the same

from the complainant and kept it in the small steel cupboard in

his cabin and locked it. Thereafter, the accused came out of his
                                *4*                    apeal2o14


cabin and locked it from the outside and went away on his

motorcycle asking the complainant to wait outside.


      (d)    The raiding party CBI, Pune had made its efforts to

arrest the accused there, but in spite of instructions from his

senior officers, the appellant/ accused did not turn up in his office

and could not be arrested. The investigating officer in presence of

PW-7 Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Assistant Garrison Engineer,

MES, Aurangabad and independent witness, after breaking open

the lock of his cabin as well as lock of the small steel cupboard

in his cabin, had recovered the bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- from

the steel cupboard of the cabin of the accused, which was in his

exclusive possession. Thereafter, the said amount of Rs. 10,000/-

came to be seized in presence of the panch witness under the

seizure panchanama on record.


      (e)    The investigating officer completed the procedure of

pre-trap and post-trap panchanama and the investigation in this

case after recording the statements of the witnesses. Accordingly,

necessary permission was obtained from Chief Engineer,

Southern Command, Pune, being superior officer and appointing

authority of the appellant, for launching the prosecution against
                               *5*                  apeal2o14


the appellant accused. Accordingly, on 16.06.2011, the charge

sheet came to be filed by PW-8 Alok Sinha, PI, CBI (ACB,

Pune) against the appellant accused.


      (f)   The learned Special Court, vide Exhibit 11, framed

the charge against the appellant for the offences punishable under

Section 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground that on or about

21.12.2010 at about 11:45 hours, the appellant demanded and

accepted Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification other than legal

remuneration from the complainant, and further that the

bribe/tainted amount was recovered from his locked cupboard.

The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.


      (g)   The prosecution, in order to prove the case against

the appellant accused, has examined nine witnesses. PW-1

Nursing Prasad Pardi, who is the sanctioning authority, at Exhibit

14. PW-2 Danish Matthew is the complainant at Exhibit 19. PW-

3 Vishwanath Ganvir, who is the panch witness, at Exhibit 34.

PW-4 Susmit Priyadarshi is a Garrison Engineer, who was

examined at Exhibit 54. PW-5 Arunkumar Deshpande who was

witness to voice identification, was examined at exhibit 73. PW-6
                               *6*                  apeal2o14


Dattu Gaike, who was driver and who had telephonic

conversation on his mobile with the appellant, was examined at

Exhibit 78. PW-7 Ashokkumar Kashyap, who is the superior

office of the appellant, was examined at Exhibit 79. PW-8 Alok

Sinha, Police Inspector, EOW, Calcutta, was examined at Exhibit

96. PW-9 Nagesh Parab, Police Inspector, ACB, Mumbai, was

examined at Exhibit 102.


      (h)   After recording the evidence and hearing the learned

counsel for the parties, the learned Special Court was pleased to

convict the appellant, thereby holding the appellant guilty of the

aforesaid offences. Hence the appellant has preferred the instant

criminal appeal.


3.          Shri Ghanekar, the learned advocate for the

appellant, submitted that as per the complainant (PW-2), after the

demand of alleged illegal gratification by the appellant, the

complaint was made by the complainant to the CBI on

21.12.2010, which was also recorded by CBI. However, in the

statement made in paragraph 4 of his deposition at Exhibit 19, it

is stated that on 20.12.2010, the complainant has filed the

complaint and which was recorded by the CBI. However, the
                                 *7*                apeal2o14


said complaint which was allegedly made by the complainant on

20.12.2010 is not produced on record. Therefore, the said

statement is not corroborated by the complainant. The said

complaint is suppressed, and therefore, adverse inference can be

drawn against the prosecution. According to Shri Ghanekar, if the

complaint was recorded on 20.12.2010, then it should have been

treated as FIR on 20.12.2010 itself. However, the said complaint

is suppressed, therefore, the complaint dated 21.12.2010 cannot

be treated as the first complaint.


4.           Shri Ghanekar further submitted that there is no

demand verification panchanama carried out by the prosecution,

and they directly proceeded for laying a trap against the

appellant. According to him, it is well-settled principle that if

there is no pre-trap panchanama, then it raises serious doubt

against the prosecution as regards involvement of the accused in

the instant crime.


5.           It was further pointed out to this Court that during

the trap, the complainant was directed to switch on the voice

recorder. Such voice recorder was directed to be kept with the

complainant whenever he will go to meet the accused. When the
                                *8*                   apeal2o14


complainant was specifically instructed, he claims to have

forgotten to switch on the recorder when he met the accused. The

recorder is given in the custody of complainant, after putting it in

switch-on condition, however, it was found to be switched off.

Thus, it is switched off only by the trap laying officer or the

member of raiding party. There is only recording of the mobile

communication in between the complainant and the appellant,

which is at Exhibit 40, which is also contrary to the substantive

evidence of the complainant. There is no reference of any

amount, there is also no demand made by the appellant. Shri

Ghanekar has taken this Court to the transcript of the said mobile

recording, which is at Exhibit 40. After perusal of the said

transcript, there is only talks regarding where the appellant is and

when they are going to meet, and from where they are talking.


6.           It is the further submission of Shri Ghanekar that as

per the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that the RAR

bill was returned to him and the appellant was going to accept it

only after the complainant pays him Rs.10,000/-. The date of

submitting RAR bill is alleged to be 10.12.2010. However, there

is no reference of the first date when the bribe is demanded and
                               *9*                   apeal2o14


the RAR bills were not accepted. The second date of demand is

alleged to be 18.12.2010. Thus, the substantive evidence of the

complainant does not corroborate with the complaint at Exhibit

20. The appellant has not accepted the RAR bills, then those

should have been with the complainant. However, the

prosecution is not coming with the case that the complainant was

in possession of RAR bills. In the cross-examination, the date of

second RAR bill is stated to be 15.12.2010. On the one hand, the

complainant is claiming that the appellant refused to accept RAR

bill, and at the same time, in cross-examination he stated that the

appellant accepted the same and assesses the second RAR bill of

Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the prosecution is not coming with clear case

as regards whether, the RAR bills were accepted or acted upon

by the appellant.


7.          Another ground which Shri Ghanekar has raised in

the instant case is that the complainant had asked the panch not

to enter the cabin along with him. However, there is no such

evidence of the panch on the point of either demand or

acceptance. The complainant claims to have forgotten to record

conversations, and there is no corroboration even by way of any
                               *10*                  apeal2o14


transcript. Thus, the evidence is not at all clinching and

trustworthy about demand and acceptance. He further submitted

that the shadow panch PW-3 Vishwanath Ganvir is of no use to

the prosecution as he admittedly not witnessed the appellant

demanding or accepting the bribe.


8.          Shri Ghanekar pointed out that the evidence of PW-

4 (Susmit Priyadarshi), who was serving as a garrison engineer,

came to be recorded on the point that the CBI team tried to chase

the appellant to find out him, however, he could not be

apprehended. The appellant has secured anticipatory bail. There

is no evidence of any powder to his hand. PW-4 in his cross-

examination stated that the copy of second RAR bill was in his

office at Ahmednagar. Therefore, the said statement falsifies the

complaint at Exhibit 20, and this admission clearly shows that

the RAR bills were forwarded to the office at Ahmednagar. Shri

Ghanekar further submitted that similarly, the evidence of PW-4

(Susmit Priyadarshi) and PW-7 (Ashokkumar Kashyap) goes to

show that no work was pending with the appellant and that the

RAR bills were processed and job of the appellant was over.

Thus, their testimony is not at all useful to the prosecution. PW-7
                               *11*                 apeal2o14


Ashokkumar Kashyap has admitted that after the receipt of

second RAR bill, the appellant has visited the site and he

restricted 20% of RAR amount. The evidence of PW-5 Aruna

Deshpande, regarding the voice identification, shows that there is

nothing incriminating, which would help the prosecution. It has

come in the evidence of PW-5 that in respect of the RAR bill

which was received in the office and entry No.52/1134 dated

16.12.2010 was made in the voucher register by her. On the basis

of her admission and also the admission given by PW-7, it can be

safely observed that there was no work pending with the

appellant and already the RAR bill was processed and job of the

appellant was over. Finally, the evidence of trap laying officer

PW-9, Nagesh Parab, is important. In evidence of PW-9, he has

stated that he has not verified whether the second RAR bill was

with the complainant. He admitted that he has not carried out the

demand verification. Thus, his evidence falls short of making out

a case of demand and acceptance of bribe against the appellant.


9.          Mr. Ghanekar, therefore, submitted that in view of

the aforesaid submissions, the appellant cannot be held guilty of

the said offences. He, therefore, prayed that the appellant
                               *12*                  apeal2o14


deserves to be acquitted by allowing the instant appeal.


10.         Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel Shri Panale

appearing for the respondent Union of India/ CBI, vehemently

opposed the instant appeal. He submitted that the prosecution has

properly established the guilt of the appellant before the court,

and as such, the learned Special Judge has committed no mistake

by convicting the appellant for the said offences. The evidence

brought on record by the prosecution is trustworthy and it is

clearly found that the appellant, by misusing his position, has

demanded the bribe amount from the complainant for performing

his official duty. The evidence on record clearly proves that the

appellant has demanded the bribe from the complainant for

sanctioning the amount of second RAR bill. The amount has

been recovered from the cupboard of the appellant, and the said

cupboard is also in the cabin of the appellant. As the appellant

could not be apprehended, therefore, with the assistance of the

superior officers of the department of the appellant, the cabin as

well as the cupboard came to be broken, and the tainted amount

of bribe was seized in presence of the panch witnesses, police

officers and superior officers. Thus, the prosecution has clearly
                                *13*                 apeal2o14


proved that the appellant has committed the aforesaid offences

and therefore, he is rightly convicted.


11.          Shri Panale further submitted that all the witnesses

have corroborated and supported the prosecution, and their

evidence is trustworthy. Shri Panale heavily relies upon Section

20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which deals with

presumption where the public servant accepts gratification other

than legal remuneration. According to him, drawing legal

presumption under Section 20 of the Act is that during trial it

should be proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to

accept such gratification. The said section does not say that the

said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. It’s

only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has

accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Shri Panale, therefore,

submitted that the prosecution has fully established that the

appellant has received the bribe amount from the complainant,

and after putting the said amount in his cabin in locked cupboard,

he went outside the office, however, the same has been seized

from the said cupboard in presence of the superior officers.

Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
                                *14*                  apeal2o14


doubt and therefore, the instant criminal appeal be dismissed, by

maintaining the conviction of the appellant.


12.          After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and

going through the evidence of the matter, it is clear that the basic

requirement of demand is required to be proved beyond all

reasonable doubt. In order to prove the charges for the offences

punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, the proof of demand of illegal

gratification is absolutely necessary as it is sine qua non of the

offence. In order to establish the guilt of the accused public

servant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2), the prosecution has

to first prove a demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent

acceptance as a matter of fact. The fact in issue can be proved by

direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral or

documentary evidence. The facts in issue, namely the proof of

demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, can also be

proved by circumstantial evidence in absence of direct oral or

documentary evidence.


13.          In order to prove the fact in issue, namely demand

and acceptance of illegal gratification by public servant, if there
                                *15*                   apeal2o14


is an offer to pay by a bribe-giver without there being any

demand from public servant and latter simply accepts the offer

and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as

per Section 7. In such case, there need not be prior demand by

the public servant. On the other hand, if the public servant makes

demand and bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the

demanded gratification, which in turn is received by the public

servant, it is the case of obtainment. In the case of such

obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates

from public servant. This is an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)

and (ii) of the Act. Thus, the prosecution is required to establish

the foundational facts of demand and acceptance/obtainment of

illegal gratification by the accused. Mere recovery of the tainted

amount, in the absence of proof of the foundational facts, cannot

by itself establish the guilt of the accused. (See: Neeraj Dutta v.

State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731).


14.          In the aforesaid background and the settled

principles enumerated in various judgments delivered by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is well settled that in the matter of

trap cases, particularly when the initial part or the genesis of that
                                *16*                  apeal2o14


story of demand and negotiation is found to be untrustworthy,

then the entire prosecution case must fail for the simple reason

that the testimony of the complainant by itself can never be

accepted. It is also well settled that the conviction of the accused

cannot be founded on the basis of inference only, but it should be

proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, either by

direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence. If such link

of chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of

accused, then the conviction is sustainable. In the present case,

the testimony of the complainant regarding the genesis of the

alleged demand and negotiation does not inspire confidence,

particularly in view of the material inconsistencies and omissions

noticed hereinabove. His testimony also does not receive

satisfactory corroboration from the panch witness, the voice

recording or the other evidence on record.


15.          In this case, it has been pointed out by the learned

counsel for the appellant that when the trap was being laid on the

appellant/ accused, at that time the panch witness, Ganvir, was

standing outside the cabin of the accused, and as such, there was

nobody in the chamber when the complainant was asked to pay
                               *17*                  apeal2o14


the bribe amount and when he has paid the amount to the

appellant. On this aspect, it is useful to refer to the evidence of

the complainant about when the complainant has asked the panch

witness to wait outside the cabin. Perusal of the evidence of the

complainant (PW-2) reveals that the complainant himself went

inside the cabin and had some conversation with the accused.

The fact that the complainant asked the panch witness to remain

outside the cabin assumes significance because the alleged

demand and acceptance took place inside the cabin and,

consequently, there is no independent ocular corroboration from

the panch witness regarding these material events. This

circumstance, coupled with the other inconsistencies and

omissions in the evidence, creates reasonable doubt regarding the

prosecution version of demand and acceptance.


16.         Looking to the evidence which is sought to be relied

upon by the prosecution, particularly about the demand as well as

acceptance and recovery, it can be safely said that the same is not

sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offences punishable

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

Corruption Act. Even otherwise, the prosecution has not seized,
                               *18*                 apeal2o14


apart from the tainted notes, other items, which might have been

came in contact with the hands of the appellant when he after

accepting the amount, went outside his cabin. However, such

items like lock, keys and cupboard, are not seized. Thus, other

materials have not been seized by the prosecution so as to prove

its case beyond all reasonable doubt and this fact goes to create

doubt as regards the case of the prosecution.


17.         The case that the amount was demanded by the

appellant is also not proved by conducting pre-trap panchanama

by the prosecution. In the present case, admittedly, no demand

verification was carried out before laying the trap. This

circumstance, by itself, may not be sufficient to discard the

prosecution case, however, it assumes significance in the facts of

the present case, particularly when the alleged demand is not

corroborated by the voice recording, the panch witness had not

witnessed the alleged demand or acceptance, and the testimony

of the complainant suffers from the inconsistencies and

omissions noticed hereinabove. As there is no pre-trap

panchanama, the prosecution tries to rely upon the mobile

conversation between the appellant as well as the complainant.
                               *19*                 apeal2o14


The said conversation of which transcription is made available, if

perused, it nowhere mentions that there was any demand from

the appellant and the complainant has agreed to pay the said

demand or that the appellant has agreed to accept the said

demand. The voice recording relied upon by the prosecution does

not contain any reference to demand of illegal gratification.

Thus, the said recording does not provide corroboration to the

complainant's version regarding the alleged demand.


18.          The submission advanced by the learned Special

Counsel for the CBI, based on Section 20 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, cannot advance the case of the prosecution

unless the prosecution first establishes the foundational facts

necessary for invoking the statutory presumption. In the present

case, for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the prosecution has

failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant

demanded and accepted illegal gratification. Therefore, the

question of drawing the statutory presumption under Section 20

does not arise.


19.          In absence of proving the very basic issues as

regards demand, acceptance, and recovery, the prosecution
                                        *20*                 apeal2o14


      cannot be said to have proved its case beyond all reasonable

      doubt. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant does not

      sustain and the appellant needs to be acquitted. Hence, the

      following order is passed:-


                                     ORDER
      (i)      The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

      (ii)     The judgment and order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the
      learned Special Judge, Aurangabad, in Special Case (AC)
      No.13/2011, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the
      offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read
      with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is
      quashed and set aside.

      (iii)    The appellant/accused is acquitted of the offences with
      which he was charged.

      (iv)     The appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled and
      the surety, if any, stands discharged.

      (v)      The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the appellant.

      (vi)     The record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned

      Court.




kps                                     (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)