THE STATE OF MAHversusASHOK LALCHAND PAWAR

2026:BHC-AUG:12435
                                                                  APPEAL-236-2012
                                               -1-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.236 OF 2012

            The State of Maharashtra,
            Through Anti Corruption Bureau,
            Aurangabad                                        … Appellant

                       Versus
            Ashok S/o. Lalchand Pawar,
            Age : 52 years, Occu. : Talathi,
            R/o. Teli Galli, Khandala,
            Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad                    … Respondent.
                                                                [Orig. Accused]

                                             …..
            Mr. P. P. Dawalkar, APP for Appellant – State.
            Ms. Monica Bagwe h/f.Mr.C.P. Sengaonkar, Advocate for Respondent.
                                             …..
                                           CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                   RESERVED ON : 18 MARCH 2026
                                PRONOUNCED ON : 24 MARCH 2026

            JUDGMENT :

            1.          In this appeal, State takes an exception to the judgment

            and order of acquittal passed on 28.03.2011 in Special Case No. 10 of

            2006 acquitting present respondent from charges under sections 7,

            13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.


                                      FACTUAL MATRIX

            2.          In brief, case of prosecution in trial court is that, PW2

            complainant after purchasing land in Gut No. 91 of village Baigaon,

            Tq. Vaijapur had approached accused a Talathi for mutating his name
                                                          APPEAL-236-2012
                                  -2-

in the revenue record. After several visits, accused put up demand of

Rs.1,000/- for doing the said work, but on negotiations, brought down

the figure to Rs.300/-. However, as complainant was not willing to

pay bribe, he approached with Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged

complaint at Exh.11. On the basis of which, PW4 Dy.S.P. Thorat

planned trap, executed it, apprehended accused, charge sheeted him

and accused was finally made to face trial vide above special case,

which ended up in acquittal. Hence the appeal by state.


                            SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of State :

3.          Learned APP would point out that, prosecution had

established the charges beyond reasonable doubt. That, there was

convincing evidence of complainant on both the demand as well as

acceptance and his testimony found support from independent

shadow panch (PW3). That, in spite of facing cross, core of

prosecution has remained undisturbed, however, still learned trial

Court noticed some minor contradictions and extended the benefit of

the same to the accused. He would point out that, here, evidence of

sanctioning authority (PW1) was duly examined, and therefore, all

requirement for bringing home the charges were available in the

evidence, but merely due to incorrect appreciation of evidence and

failure to consider law, trial ended up in acquittal, and therefore, he
                                                        APPEAL-236-2012
                                   -3-

prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment

and order.


On behalf of Respondent :


4.           Per contra, learned counsel for accused would justify the

order of acquittal by pointing out that, at the outset, there was no

application for carrying out mutation entry, and as such, there is no

evidence about any work with accused a Talathi or further failure to

do it, and rather putting a demand of bribe. She pointed out that,

here, Investigating Officer has not carried out verification of demand

prior to the trap. That, further complainant and shadow panch are

inconsistent on multiple counts and the same is reflected in the

judgment passed by learned trial Court. She also pointed out that

even otherwise, acceptance is not proved, because admittedly

recovery of tainted currency is not from the person of accused, but

from the mattress. That, both complainant and shadow panch

admitted that, in absence of accused they had waited him for one

hour, and as such, there was obvious possibility of planting currency

or falsely implicating him. For above reasons, he justified the order of

acquittal and prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.


                EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

5.           On the lines of above submissions, evidence on record is
                                                            APPEAL-236-2012
                                     -4-

put to scrutiny.     In the light of the nature of accusation and the

charge, at the threshold, it is to be seen whether there was a demand

and acceptance, and whether complainant’s evidence finds support

from independent witness PW3 so as to hold the charges proved. In

the light of such requirement, a brief account of evidence of

complaint and shadow panch is reproduced.



            PW2 Balu is the complainant, who has deposed at Exh.10

regarding he approaching office of Talathi, meeting him and being

asked by accused to come after 15 days, and accordingly he going,

but again asked to come after 08 days. According to him, twice

thrice he visited the office of accused, and therefore, finally he visited

the residential house of accused at village Khandala and there it is

alleged   that,   accused    made    demand     of   Rs.1,000/-,   but   on

negotiations,     figure   was   settled   to   Rs.300/-.   According    to

complainant, accused asked him to come with the said amount at his

residence on the next day, but complainant approached Anti

Corruption Bureau and gave complaint (Exh.11). Then he narrated

about independent panch being called and they both being given

necessary instructions, and thereafter, in paragraph 6 he stated that,

after drawing pre-trap panchanama, he and panch went to the house

of accused. According to him, after visiting house of accused, they

were made to shift in one room wherein mattress was spread on the
                                                         APPEAL-236-2012
                                   -5-

floor. Accused came and allegedly asked complainant whether the

amount was brought. Accordingly the tainted currency was removed,

and the accused asked complainant to keep it on newspaper and

accordingly it was done. After which, accused lifted the newspaper

along with the currency notes and made the currency to slide on the

mattress. After which, pre-determined signal was given.



           While under cross complainant has answered that, he had

gathered information about procedure of effecting mutation entry

and admitted that it can be done only on certification of Circle Officer.

According to him, during his third visit to accused, bribe amount was

demanded. He answered that he did not verify 7/12 extract i.e. before

keeping amount in the newspaper. In paragraph no. 9, he answered

that the newspaper was in Marathi and according to him, it was not

on the mattress when they had been there. Rather according to him,

accused had brought it with him. He answered that when accused

was caught, at that time, he was sitting on the mattress. He is unable

to state whether Investigating Officer collected the bed-sheet.



           PW3 Shankar shadow panch, in his evidence at Exh.13,

narrated about visiting Anti Corruption Bureau office, being

introduced to complainant, signing the complaint. Regarding the

events of trap, he deposed in paragraph no. 4 that after alighting

from vehicle, he and complaint walked to the house and knock the
                                                        APPEAL-236-2012
                                  -6-

the doors, which was answered by a boy, and thereafter, they made to

sit on the floor having mattress. According to him, accused came and

also sat on the mattress. According to him, complainant asked about

7/12 extract, but at that time, accused told that it was not ready as

he had not given money and now that if he gives it, his 7/12 extract

would be prepared. Complainant took out the wad of notes and kept it

on the mattress in front of accused. Thereafter, accused kept Sakal

newspaper over the tainted currency. After which, the signal was

relayed.



            While under cross, in paragraph no.12 he admitted that,

he had referred the panchanama prior to deposing.


                             ANALYSIS

            On minute scrutiny of evidence of complainant and this

witness i.e. shadow panch, it is clearly emerging that, they are not

consistent for the reason that, according to complainant, while sitting

in the room of accused at his residence, after asking the accused

about 7/12 extract, accused allegedly directly questioned whether he

brought money, and when accused asked him to give it to him, the

currency was kept on the newspaper, which the accused lifted along

with the currency and made the currency notes slide to corner of the

mattress.
                                                        APPEAL-236-2012
                                   -7-

              But, PW3 gives a distinct version, as according to him,

when complainant allegedly stated that he has not received the 7/12

extract yet, after which accused told that it is not ready and it would

be ready after amount is paid and it to be ready by Monday.

Similarly, according to PW3 shadow panch, after above conversation,

complainant has said that, he has brought the money and saying so,

he kept the wad of currency on the mattress and this witness does

not speak about currency being placed in the newspaper as is stated

by complainant.



              Consequently, as submitted and as held by learned trial

court, in spite of being together, witnesses are not consistent. Rather

their testimonies suggest accused has not accepted the currency, but

it was placed on either newspaper or on mattress. Therefore,

apparently currency was not recovered from the person of accused.



6.            Second variance, as pointed out, the testimony of above

two witnesses is that, according to PW2 complainant, he relayed

signal by first drinking water and by making gargle, but according to

PW3 shadow panch, the complainant was asked to give pre-

determined signal by etching on the back with the left hand.

Therefore, even on the point of relay of signal, witnesses are not

consistent.
                                                         APPEAL-236-2012
                                   -8-

7.          Admittedly, another panch no.2 namely Balya had

apparently picked up the tainted currency from the spot and not

from the possession of accused. But, apparently, there are no

anthracene traces to hands of panch no.2 Balya. This also contributes

to the credibility of prosecution story on the point of recovery.



8.          Prosecution has put up a defence of planting money.

Admittedly, as stated above, currency is not found on the person or

possession of the accused. For above reasons, story of prosecution is

rendered doubtful.



9.          Therefore, for the above reasons, the evidence of

prosecution is full of variances, contradictions and on account of

inconsistency between testimony of PW2 complainant and PW3

shadow panch, story of prosecution on the point of demand, for the

above stated reasons, does not inspire confidence.



10.         Perused the order. Learned trial Court seems to have

taken into account the entire substantive evidence of prosecution

witness, more particularity PW2 complainant and PW3 shadow

panch, and has taken note of the contradictions, omissions and

variance. Finding the case not proved beyond reasonable doubt,

benefits seems to have extended. Hence, the following order is

passed:
                                                  APPEAL-236-2012
                           -9-

                         ORDER

          The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.



                                 (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)




Tandale