THE STATE OF MAHversusBHIVA RATAN MAVACHI

2026:BHC-AUG:41974


                                                                      CrAppeal-305-2012
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 305 OF 2012

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through the P.I. Anti Corruption Bureau,
                 Dhule.                                             ….Appellant

                             Versus

                 Bhiva Ratan Mavachi (Deceased)

                 1-a) Smt. Mangalbai Bhiva Mavachi
                      Age: 68 years, Occu.: Household (Wife)

                 2-b) Jitendra Bhiva Mavachi
                      Age: 42 years, Occu.: Nill (Son)
                      Both R/o. Bhopkhel, Post.Dandshirwade,
                      Tq.Sakri, Dist. Dhule.

                 3-c) Sou. Kavita Harshad Gamit
                      Age: 38 years, Occu.: Household (Daughter)
                      R/o.: At. Dhat, Tq.Vyara, Dist.Tai (Gujrat).

                 4-d) Sow. Tanuja Ramchandra Ahire
                      Age: 32 yrs., Occu.: Household (Daughter)
                      R/o. At. Ukai Road, Songad,
                      Dist.Tapi (Gujrat)                        …..Respondents

                                                 …..
                 Mrs.Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for Appellant.
                 Mr.Tapan Kishor Sant, Advocate for Respondent.
                                                 …..

                                         CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                         Reserved on        : 10-09-2026
                                         Pronounced on      : 11-09-2026
                                                     CrAppeal-305-2012
                                 -2-

JUDGMENT :

1.    This is a State appeal in which there is challenge to Judgment

and order dated 11-08-2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge (Special Judge), Shahada in Special Case No.13 of 2003,

acquitting respondent/original accused from charges under Sections

7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988


                    BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2.    In trial Court, case set up by prosecution was that, complainant

was a School Teacher at Zilla Parishad School, Dahel, Tq.Akkalkuwa,

District Nandurbar. Accused, who is a Block Education Officer (BEO)

paid visit to the said School on 03-12-2001. Complainant was not

present in the School during inspection of School. On 04-12-2001,

complainant approached accused to offer explanation of his absence

that he was engaged in election duty work assigned by the Tahsildar,

however, accused told him that he would report his absence as well as

remark of his unsatisfactory work. It is the case of prosecution that,

complainant requested him to not to do so, upon which accused

demanded Rs.2,000/- for refraining from doing the same and hence,

report to that extent was received by the Anti Corruption Bureau

(ACB) after which trap was planned and executed.                 After

apprehension of accused, Investigating Officer lodged complaint,
                                                       CrAppeal-305-2012
                                   -3-

investigated the same, chargesheeted the accused. Evidence adduced

by prosecution was appreciated by trial Court and accused came to be

acquitted. Hence, instant appeal by State.


                            SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellant State :

3.    Learned APP would give brief account of prosecution story in

trial Court. According to her, case of prosecution in trial court was

rested on the evidence of PW1 complainant, PW2 Sanctioning

Authority, PW3 shadpw pancha and PW4 Investigating Officer. She

pointed out that, though complainant, at a later point of time, in his

evidence resiled and did not support story of prosecution, according

to her, initial testimony before the learned trial Court deserves

consideration as it is partly in favour of prosecution. At this juncture,

she seeks reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 as well as

recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The State of

Kerala v. K.A. Abdul Rasheed, 2026 LiveLaw SC 374.


4.    She next submitted that, there is sufficient corroboration from

testimony of PW3 shadow pancha, who has stuck with his version

about demand as well as acceptance.           That, his testimony has
                                                      CrAppeal-305-2012
                                  -4-

remained intact in cross-examination. That, he was party to both

demand as well as acceptance. That, there is recovery from accused

and consequently, it is her submission that, the learned trial Court

ought to have accepted prosecution story, but it being failed to do so,

she urges for indulgence at the hands of this Court by setting aside

the impugned judgment.


On behalf of Respondent Accused :

5.    Per contra, learned counsel for respondent would support the

Judgment and order of acquittal. According to him, complainant has

not supported prosecution story and has rather retracted and resiled

from contents which were reported by him in the complaint. That, he

did not support prosecution and thus he was also cross-examined by

learned APP. Further according to him, sanction also is invalid as

witness, who is examined, has admitted that appointing and removing

authority was Maharashtra Government.        Resultantly, for want of

merits, he prays to dismiss the appeal.


                              ANALYSIS

6.    Re-appreciated the evidence. It is in vernacular Marathi and

sum and substance of its translated version is as under :

      PW1 Gujar Tulshiram Choure, complainant deposed at Exhibit
                                                      CrAppeal-305-2012
                                  -5-

32 that he works as Primary Teacher and accused to be Block

Education Officer. According to him, between 04-11-2001 to

05-12-2001, he and one Dinkar Bahadur Pawara were assigned duty

of preparing voters list by the Tahsildar, Akkalkuwa and as such, they

were required to give visits to remote areas. That, on 03-12-2001

they had been to Baripada but on next day, when he reported at

School on 04-12-2001, he learnt about accused paying visit to their

School on 03-12-2001 and therefore, he met him. Accused told him

that his work is not satisfactory and moreover, he was not present in

the School and that he would give report of the same to the Chief

Executive Officer (CEO), Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar. He also deposed

that, at that time, accused told him that, if Rs.2,000/- is paid to him,

he would not despatch such report and asked him to bring money at

Panchayat Samiti Aakkalkuwa and if they do not meet there, then

amount should be brought at Panchayat Samiti, Dhadgaon. Witness

testified that on 12-12-2001, he approached ACB office and gave

complaint of demand of bribe of Rs.2,000/- and said complaint is at

Exhibit 33. In paragraph 5 of his examination-in-chief, he stated that

on next day i.e. on 13-12-2001, he visited ACB office where Panchas

were introduced to him, and on the same day at around 07:00 a.m.,

they proceeded towards Akkalkuwa.        That, when he and shadow

pancha visited the office of accused, he was not found there and
                                                       CrAppeal-305-2012
                                  -6-

therefore, they came back and reported it to Investigating Officer. He

deposed that at his request, it was decided to pay visit to Dhadgaon

for laying trap and accordingly, they went there and after reaching

there, he and shadow pancha paid visit to office of accused, greeted

him. He deposed that, thereafter he offered accused to have tea and

accordingly they went to a hotel and after taking tea, he told accused

that he has brought Rs.2,000/- upon which accused told him that

have a word with hotel owner and he went away. Therefore, he gave

amount to hotel owner and went and gave signal, after which raiding

party apprehended hotel owner. After stating so much, learned APP

seems to have secured permission of learned trial Court to cross-

examine the witness and at such time, he denied that he and accused

went towards Dilkhush Chicken center and there accused said to him

that if Rs.2,000/- is paid, then he will not send report. All suggestions

put by learned Public Prosecutor were denied by complainant and

subsequently, he was cross-examined by defence counsel wherein he

denied that, on the instigation of one G.N.Patil, he has lodged false

complaint against accused.

      Therefore, it is emerging from above evidence that complainant

has denied any demand being made and he on his own has informed

accused about bringing Rs.2,000/- which according to him were

accepted by hotel owner.
                                                     CrAppeal-305-2012
                                 -7-

7.    PW3 More, shadow pancha, who is examined at Exhibit 40

deposed about he visiting ACB office, agreeing to act as pancha,

listening to story of complainant, causing signature over complaint,

and he and complainant proceeding towards Panchayat Samiti

Akkalkuwa, reaching there, but accused to be not present in the office

and about rather they informed that he had gone to Dhaddgaon and

complainant suggesting to the Investigating Officer that they should

go to Dhangaon and accordingly, they reaching there at 01:40 p.m.

That, at the entrance gate of Panchayat Samiti, they met accused.

Witness gave description of his attire and stated that, complainant

told accused that first they should have tea and accordingly, they

went in a hotel where complainant ordered tea. Witness deposed

that, at that time, complainant requested accused to not to send

report to the CEO, upon which accused told complainant to wait. At

that time, one person in white dress was present there and he told

accused that as he has work at Panchayat Samiti and he wish to go.

Thereafter, again complainant requested accused to not to send

report, after which complainant paid bill of the tea and thereafter,

complainant and accused went towards Dilkhush Chicken Center and

witness claims that he also went there. That, there also complainant

requested accused to not to send report upon which accused agreed

and asked whether Rs.2,000/- has been brought and it was affirmed
                                                      CrAppeal-305-2012
                                  -8-

by complainant and he handed over tainted currency, which was

accepted by accused and it was further pocketed and thereafter,

predetermined signal was relayed by the complainant.

      Above witness is subjected to extensive cross-examination on

the point of how many signatures were caused by him on 12-12-2001

and 13-12-2001. He admitted causing signatures on the papers dated

03-12-2001 containing remark noted by accused i.e. Exhibit Nos.43

and 44. He also admitted that on 03-12-2001, three teachers namely

Anil Ahire, Gujar Choure and Dinkar Paware were absent but he did

not notice it. He admitted that Exhibit 44 is the show cause notice,

copy of which is addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla

Parishad, Nandurbar being already despatched. Then there is further

cross-examination about writing work of panchanama and his

statement recorded by Investigating Officer. He denied that on

16-12-2001, he did not give statement that complainant and accused

came out of the tea stall, went towards Dilkhush Chicken Center and

there, accused demanded money from complainant and complainant

paid him, which he pocketed. However, on confronting the statement,

he is unable to state why it is missing from his statement. Therefore,

this is material omission. He is also unable to state why to this extent

his supplementary statement was recorded on 07-08-2002.              He

answered that, it did not have so happened that after coming out of
                                                     CrAppeal-305-2012
                                   -9-

hotel, complainant said to accused that he should not forward report

to higher officer upon which complainant said that they would talk

later. Rest is all denial.


8.    Learned APP would submit that, in view of above evidence of

PW1 complainant, initial part of his examination-in-chief is in

consonance with the story of prosecution and therefore, so much part

of examination-in-chief deserves acceptance coupled with evidence of

shadow pancha. However, according to her, trial Court failed to do

so. She has relied on above rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court. No

doubt, it is now fairly settled position that merely because

complainant resiles or retracts and turns hostile, his entire testimony

need not be discarded.       However, so much part of the testimony,

which deserves consideration, should atleast be in consonance with

the story of prosecution.      Here, it is noticed from testimony of

complainant that, he deposed only to the extent of visit to office at

Tasildar, Akkalkuwa and when accused was not present there, at his

instance, they had been to Dhadgaon. But after stating that accused

met them at the entrance of Panchayat Office and they went to take

tea, tea was ordered and after taking tea, he deposed that, he told

accused that, he has brought Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, here, apparently

without any demand by accused, there is offer of bribe. After stating
                                                     CrAppeal-305-2012
                                   -10-

so much, learned APP seems to have decided to cross-examine the

witness, but even during cross-examination at the hands of

prosecution, he has denied the events which took place near Dilkhush

Chicken Center of which there is testimony of PW3 shadow pancha.

He denied that there was demand by accused and denied giving

statement to the ACB office.

      Though PW3 shadow pancha deposed in examination-in-chief

about demand of bribe by accused near Dilkhush Chicken Center, in

paragraph 9 of his cross-examination, there is omission to that extent.

His statement to Police is silent on this count.


9.    Learned counsel for respondent accused would point out that,

only because show cause notice was forwarded against the

complainant to higher authorities, motivated complaint has been

lodged on 12-12-2001. In this context, if record is put to scrutiny, it

does emerge that complainant reported that, during his conversation

with accused on 04-12-2001, there was demand by accused.

However, there was no prompt reporting of bribe immediately that

day or even on next day. Rather complaint is shown to be lodged on

12-12-2001. This witness has admitted Exhibit 44, which is a show

cause notice and it is got exhibited after it was confronted to him by

defence.   Apparently, it is a show cause notice dated 10-12-2001
                                                        CrAppeal-305-2012
                                 -11-

despatched by accused to the Chief Executive Officer, Nandurbar

prior to the complaint dated 12-12-2001.         Therefore, there are

reasons to hold that complaint is motivated. It is to be noted that

very accusation of prosecution is that, bribe was demanded to refrain

from despatching remark to the higher authority i.e. Chief Executive

Officer, but in the light of above discussion, it is emerging that show

cause notice was despatched on 10-12-2001 and as such action has

already been initiated against complainant prior to lodgement of

complaint by complainant.       Consequently, prior to the date of

complaint, action was initiated and therefore, reasonable doubt crops

up about very motive to demand bribe.             Therefore, case of

prosecution is indeed not free from doubt and it is not proved beyond

reasonable doubt.

      Keeping in mind the principles to be applied and borne in mind

while dealing with appeal against acquittal, this Court is not inclined

to accept the prosecution story, as has been done by the learned trial

court. For above reasons, following order is passed :

                               ORDER

                 The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.



                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
SPT