THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusGUNVANT DAMODHAR SALVE.

2026:BHC-AUG:37129


                                                   {1}             CrAppeal-31-2016


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2016

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Sundar Rambhau Bhandwale
                 Age: 57 years, Occu.: Dy.S.P.., Anti Corruption
                 Bureau, Osmanabad.                                 ….Appellant
                             Versus
                 Gunvant Damodhar Salve
                 Age: 55 years, Occu.: Service as
                 Senior Assistant, Education Dept.,
                 [Secondary Division], Zilla Parishad,
                 Osmanabad, R/o. Hasegaon [Kaij],
                 Tq.Kallam, District Osmanabad.                     …..Respondent
                                                                      [Ori. Accused]
                                                   …..
                 Mr.N.D.Raje, APP for Appellant.
                 Mr.Tushar Shinde h/f. Mr.Chandrakant K.Shinde, Advocate for
                 Respondent.
                                                 …..
                                     CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                      RESERVED ON   : 18 AUGUST, 2026
                                      PRONOUNCED ON : 19 AUGUST, 2026
                 JUDGMENT :


                 1. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal

                 dated 27-03-2015, State has come up by way of instant appeal

                 thereby questioning the said judgment passed by learned Special

                 Judge, Osmanabad, in Special (A.C.) Case No.8 of 2012, which was

                 tried for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the

                 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
                                  {2}            CrAppeal-31-2016


                     BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2.     In short, prosecution case in trial Court was that, complainant

was Secretary of an educational institution namely Gokul Shikshan

Prasarak Sanstha, Raigavhan. Said Sanstha has two schools namely

Sharadchandraji Pawar Vidyalaya, Khondala and Sant Goroba Kaka

Vidyalaya, Saundana (Amba), which were fully granted schools and

were receiving grand-in-aid including rent for building in which

schools were run.   Inspite of sending proposal to Zilla Parishad for

getting grant of rent, accused a Senior Clerk, raised objections and

finally, demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- for sending the proposal

further for sanction.    Complainant approached Anti Corruption

Bureau (ACB), lodged complaint resulting into planning of trap by

engaging panchas, getting verification of demand done, drawing pre-

trap panchanana and finally, laying main trap in which accused came

to be apprehended and tried before learned Special Court for above

charge.

      As stated above, trial ended up in acquittal of accused and

therefore, said judgment is impugned herein.

                           SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellant State :

3.     Learned APP would point out that, there is no dispute that
                                  {3}             CrAppeal-31-2016


complainant had forwarded proposal for receiving rent of the school

building. That, there is no denial that, accused, being a Senior Clerk,

in Zilla Parishad, Osamanabad, had received the said proposal,

however, according to him, with intention to seek bribe, accused

raised several objections to the said proposal and finally, raised

demand of Rs.5,000/- of which complaint was received by ACB, who

conducted trap.


4.    He next submitted that, complainant has deposed about

demand of Rs.5,000/-. That, demand was repeatedly raised and this

witness has deposed to that extent in his evidence. That, the aspect

of demand has remained unchallenged inspite of searching cross-

examination. According to him, there is testimony of PW2 shadow

pancha lending support to testimony of PW1 complainant and

therefore, aspect of demand was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

However, according to him, learned trial Court failed to appreciate

and consider the same.


5.    As regards to acceptance is concerned, it is submitted that,

there were anthracene traces to the hand of accused suggesting

acceptance of bribe amount and as such, according to him, there

being both demand as well as acceptance, offence is complete. But
                                   {4}             CrAppeal-31-2016


learned trial Court has lost sight of the above crucial evidence and

has erred in acquitting the accused by refusing to accept the case of

prosecution.


6.    He pointed out that, there was valid sanction and Sanctioning

Authority was examined, but there is non-consideration of the same.

According to him, there are strong circumstances and even though

there was no direct demand, in view judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)

(2023) 4 SCC 731, circumstances like spot, pre trap panchanama,

post trap panchanama, ought to have been considered by the learned

trial Court to accept the case of prosecution, but as it failed, he urges

to set aside the impugned judgment by allowing the appeal. He also

relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

C.S.Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 4 SCC 81.


On behalf of Respondent Accused :

7.     Per contra, learned counsel for respondent accused would

submit that prosecution miserably failed to bring home the charges.

He further submits that, sine qua non like demand itself was not

proved beyond reasonable doubt, rather according to him, prior to

any demand, complainant has offered bribe.
                                  {5}             CrAppeal-31-2016


8.     He next submitted that, defence of accused is of thrusting of

amount and therefore, mere traces of anthracene powder while

removing the thrusted currency has no significance and as such,

according to him, there is no voluntary acceptance.


9.     On the point of validity of sanction, it is submitted that,

initially sanction was accorded by Deputy Director (Education)

namely Honmane, but he unfortunately expired and in his place

prosecution surprisingly adduced evidence of PW3 Vaijinath Kondiba

Khandke, who was subordinate of above deceased and he merely

affirmed the signature of his predecessor. But it is pointed out that,

he went on to the extent of deposing as if he himself has studied the

investigation papers while according sanction and on such count,

attention of this Court is invited to testimony of PW3. Thus,

according to learned counsel, there is non-application of mind

coupled with incompetence to accord sanction.

       For all above reasons, he justifies the order of acquittal and

prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.


      EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND ITS ANALYSIS

10.    Re-appreciated the evidence, more particularly, that of PW1

Vishwanath Ramdas Narwade, complainant and PW2 Mujib Ahmad
                                 {6}           CrAppeal-31-2016


Mahmmad Usman Dongare, shadow pancha.

      PW1 complainant at exh.16 deposed that, he is Secretary of an

educational institution and said institute has two schools, which

receive full grant from the Government and the school by name

Sharadchandraji Pawar is housed in a rented building and as the

Government used to pay its rent, after getting the rent fixed from

P.W.D., proposal is to be sent to Zilla Parishad and accordingly, he

sent proposal to Education Officer. According to him, proposal was

sent to office of Deputy Director of Education for sanction and work

of forwarding proposal was with respondent accused namely

Gunvant Damodhar Salve, who was Senior Clerk. He deposed that,

whenever he met accused, he said that, he is not looked at and how

proposal is to be forwarded for sanction.       He claims that on

22-02-2012, when he met accused in the office and requested him to

send proposal for sanction, accused told him to pay Rs.5,000/- for

sending the proposal. Witness stated that, he had told accused that

he did not have money at that time but he would arrange it and on

the next day he made a phone call to accused to inform about

arrangement being made, but accused said that he was busy and to

come on next day. Witness deposed that, as he was not willing to pay

bribe, he approached ACB, who called panchas, gave necessary
                                  {7}            CrAppeal-31-2016


instructions and for verifying demand, initially he and shadow

pancha were made to approach accused and they accordingly

approached accused, had conversation with accused whereby he was

asked to send proposal and that demand would be satisfied. The

conversation, which was tape-recorded in voice recorder, was heard

and its panchanama was drawn. Then he narrated about all steps

taken by ACB authorities like application of anthracene powder and

its demonstration and giving necessary instructions to complainant

and shadow pancha.

      Regarding main trap he deposed in paragraph 7 that, he and

pancha went to office of accused. That, accused asked them to come

and sit. Complainant himself deposed that, he told accused that he

has brought Rs.5,000/- and accused asked him to give it.

      Thus, during main trap, it is abundantly clear that, before any

demand being made, accused has himself offered bribe. Therefore, as

submitted by learned counsel for respondent and as rightly held by

learned trial Court, there is no demand at the first count by accused

either at the time of demand verification or at the time of main trap.

Though complainant has deposed that on 22-02-2012, there was

demand of Rs.5,000/-, there is no corroboration. As submitted by

learned counsel for respondent and as held by learned trial Court,
                                  {8}            CrAppeal-31-2016


sine qua non like demand itself is missing from the testimony of very

complainant, rather there seems to be direct offer both at the time of

demand verification as well as main trap.


11.   PW2 is the shadow pancha and he is examined at exh.22. He

deposed in paragraph 2 about demand verification got done by

sending him and complainant with a voice recorder to the office of

accused and according to him, when complaint asked accused about

his work, accused told complainant that he will do the work and

whether he brought the amount. But as stated, PW1 complainant has

not stated in such manner. This witness further deposed about steps

taken by ACB for arranging the trap and in paragraph 4 of

examination-in-chief itself, he stated that, when he and complainant

approached accused, complainant asked about his work and accused

asked whether he has brought as stated by him. Thus, according to

this witness, accused demanded bribe.


12.   In the testimony of PW1 complainant there are material

omissions in paragraph Nos.14 and 15, which goes to root of the

matter.

      Resultantly, there is no demand by accused even when it is the

case of prosecution.
                                  {9}            CrAppeal-31-2016


      In the cases of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of

Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 10 SCC 152; Mukhtiar Singh

(since deceased) through his Legal Representatives v. State of

Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC, 136, K.Shanthamma v. State of Telangana,

(2022) 4 SCC 574, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, if demand

of bribe is not proved then acceptance/recovery of bribe from

possession of accused is of no relevance.



13.   As regards to sanction is concerned, prosecution has adduced

evidence of PW3 Vaijinath Khandke at exh.34 and according to him,

at the time of deposing, he was Deputy Director (Education), but in

2012, he worked as Education Officer (Secondary) and he knew

accused, who was a Senior Clerk and was incharge for sending non-

salary grant proposal of building rent for sanction. That, there were

objections in the proposal of complainant’s institution and to that

extent, a letter was issued, but objections were complied and

according to him, no Government charges are required to be paid for

sending proposal.

      In paragraph 2, he deposed that, Deputy Director is the

appointing and removing authority and in 2012, Mr.Honmane was

Deputy Director of Education and he identified his signature.
                                   {10}             CrAppeal-31-2016


However, in examination-in-chief itself, he stated that, he could

identify the signature having worked under him. This shows that,

this witness was subordinate to Deputy Director Honmane, who

accorded sanction. But surprisingly, as pointed out, he went on to

depose that if any proposal for sanction to prosecute is sent, he

himself used to scrutinize the papers and if it was found that there

was sufficient ground and prima facie evidence, then he used to

grant sanction.

      Thus, apparently above witness merely identified the signature

of actual Deputy Director of Education namely Honmane and nothing

beyond it.



14.   The citations relied by the learned APP cannot be made

applicable to the case in hand as the facts are quite distinguishable.



                             SUMMATION

15.   To sum up, here, predominantly there is no demand by

accused.     Rather, there is direct offer at the time of demand

verification as well as main trap.        When essential ingredients of

demand is missing, entire prosecution case collapses.
                                  {11}               CrAppeal-31-2016


16.   Perused the impugned judgment.          Learned trial Court has

correctly appreciated the available evidence and has recorded

findings based on sound reasons. No patent perversity or irregularity

is brought to the notice of this Court so as to interfere in the

impugned judgment.      Therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, following order is passed :



                               ORDER

                     Criminal Appeal is dismissed.



                                         ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                                 JUDGE


SPT