BHAGWAN S/O. TRAMBAKRAO BHEREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:46387


                                                                    CriAppeal-249-2016
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.249 OF 2016

                 Bhagwan s/o Trambakrao Bhere
                 Age: 57 years, Occu.: Government
                 service as Assistant Sub Inspector
                 (Bakkal No.612) at Mahila Sahayyak
                 Kaksha in the office of the
                 Superintendent of Police Rural,
                 R/o. N-12, ED 13/7, Bharatmata
                 Nagar, HUDCO, Aurangabad,
                 Taluka and District Aurangabad.                        .. Appellant

                       Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through the Police Station,
                 Phulambri, Taluka Phulambri,
                 District Aurangabad.                                   .. Respondent

                                                 …
                 Mr. Rajendrraa S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Devang R.
                 Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant.
                 Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, APP for the respondent/State.
                                                 ...

                                                CORAM :    ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                Reserved on : 01.10.2026
                                                Pronounced on : 05.10.2026

                 JUDGMENT :-

                 1.    In this appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order of

                 conviction dated 28.03.2016 rendered by learned Special Judge-5,

                 Aurangabad in Special (ACB) Case No.21 of 2009. Vide this judgment

                 and order, conviction has been recorded for offence under Sections 7,
                                                    CriAppeal-249-2016
                                 -2-

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

[for short “P.C. Act”].


2.    In trial Court, case of prosecution was that, mobile and

motorcycle of PW2 complainant was seized by police, when some

persons including complainant were apprehended while involved in

gambling i.e. playing cards. Though complainant was released, his

mobile and motorcycle were seized and for that, he had approached

Court and also succeeded in procuring the order of release of mobile

as well as motorcycle. In that connection, he had approached accused,

the Police Head Constable. According to prosecution, for releasing the

vehicle and mobile, there was demand of bribe of Rs.1,000/-.

Complainant approached ACB, lodged report, in consequence to

which ACB authorities planned trap by engaging shadow panch PW3,

giving both complainant and panch necessary instructions and

demonstrations and accused was apprehended after accepting the

bribe. Hence, he was chargesheeted and tried and also convicted by

learned Trial Court. Hence, instant appeal.


3.    Learned Senior Counsel Shri Deshmukh would submit that

there is false implication. According to him, the prosecution has not

discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

He would submit that, at the outset, the sanction was invalid. He
                                                    CriAppeal-249-2016
                                 -3-

would submit that the sanctioning authority had not studied or

considered entire papers and that there was an admission to that

extent. Thus, according to him, there was non-application of mind

while according sanction.


4.    As regards to demand is concerned, he submitted that

complainant himself had not supported the prosecution and he was

required to be cross-examined by prosecution. Resultantly, according

to him, demand itself is not proved. He would submit that though

shadow panch is examined and he has deposed about prosecution

case, it has come in his cross-examination that he was habitual panch

and, therefore, was not worthy of credence. That, even complainant

was found to be habitual complainant. Therefore, with such quality of

evidence, it is his submission that case of prosecution ought not to

have been accepted by the learned Trial Court. Hence, by seeking

reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of

Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153 and on the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Sunkanna vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 ALL MR (Cri.) 4551 (S.C.) , he urges to

allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.


5.    Per contra, learned APP would support the judgment and order

of conviction. According to him, verification of demand was done and
                                                      CriAppeal-249-2016
                                   -4-

thereafter, main trap was laid. He pointed out that, complainant had,

in his initial part of deposition, supported prosecution and so much

part of his testimony can definitely be relied. He seeks reliance on the

judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State

(Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731. He would submit

that shadow panch has also supported prosecution. That, sanction is

in fact held valid by Trial Court and, therefore, he prays to dismiss the

appeal for want of merits.


6.    Re-appreciated the evidence. As regards to first ground raised

by appellant regarding validity of sanction is concerned, this Court

has studied the evidence of PW1, who was Superintendent of Police.

He has deposed about studying the papers and applying his mind and

thereafter, according sanction. He was also empowered to accord

sanction. Mere failure to carry the papers received from the ACB to

the Court, by itself, is no good ground to disbelieve his otherwise

trustworthy evidence. In the opinion of this Court, there is sanction

after due application of mind.


7.    As regards to demand and verification is concerned, PW2

Complainant, who is examined at Exhibit-30, in his deposition has

stated that on 22.02.2009, when he had been to village Chauka, he

was arrested by police with other 14 persons while playing cards and
                                                     CriAppeal-249-2016
                                  -5-

his mobile and Hero Honda motorcycle were seized. That, he was

required to approach the Court and he obtained order for release of

both items and thereafter, he claims to have approached accused,

who was posted at Phulambri Police Station. He has deposed that in

spite of handing over Court order, accused did not comply and

moreover, asked him how much amount was with him and when he

stated that he had no money, but showed his inclination to pay

Rs.1000/-. Thereafter, he lodged the report. He then stated about his

visit to the ACB office, where the panchas were called, and thereafter,

about the visit to the house of the accused at Himayatbag and

subsequently, to Phulambri Police Station. However, at this point, he

denied having paid Rs.1,000/-.


.     While facing cross-examination at the hands of learned APP, he

admitted that he had filed complaint with ACB and he also admitted

and identified the complaint. He is unable to offer any explanation

about the contents of the complaint.


8.    Therefore, bearing in mind the settled law that, the testimony

of a hostile witness need not be discarded in toto, if a part of such

testimony supporting the prosecution can be relied, here also the

complainant's initial deposition about his approaching the accused for

the release of his vehicle and mobile phone and the accused making a
                                                     CriAppeal-249-2016
                                  -6-

demand, can definitely be taken recourse to and relied upon.


9.    PW3 shadow panch, who is examined at Exhibit-41, initially

deposed about visiting ACB office, meeting complainant, hearing his

story, signing the complaint and verification of demand being done by

Investigating officer. In paragraph No.4 of his examination-in-chief,

he has stated that when he accompanied complainant to the house of

accused, they meeting him in a lane and there, accused asking

complainant, whether he has brought the agreed amount. Therefore,

shadow panch corroborates complainant on the point of demand. This

witness also deposed about accused being apprehended after the

main trap, regarding which he deposed in paragraph Nos.10 and 11.


10    True it is, that this witness, in his cross-examination, has

admitted that he has acted as panch in two cases, but except giving

such suggestions, details of he appearing in which case, has not been

brought on record. Therefore, his such answer itself could not be

considered to be damaging.


11.   Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, here, both

demand as well as acceptance have been established. The sanction is

also valid. Such quality of evidence has rightly been taken aid of by

the learned Trial Court in accepting the case of the prosecution. There
                                                     CriAppeal-249-2016
                                  -7-

is no infirmity or perversity so as to warrant interference. Hence, the

following order is passed :-


                               ORDER


            .      Criminal Appeal is dismissed.



                                         [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



scm