DILIP BHIKANRAO SOLUNKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38643


                                                  {1}            CrAppeal-346-2016


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 346 OF 2016

                 .     Dilip Bhikanrao Solunke
                       (Original Appellant) (Died)
                        Through his L.Rs.
                       1-A Chandrakala W/o Dilip Solunke
                       Age : 50 yeas, Occu.: Housewife,
                       R/o. Tembhurni, Tq.Jafrabad,
                       District: Jalna.                    ….Appellant
                                                     (Wife of deceased - Dilip
                                                     Bhikanrao Solunke)

                             Versus

                 .     The State of Maharashtra            …..Respondent
                                                  …..
                 Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Appellant.
                 Mrs.Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for Respondent.
                                                 …..

                                      CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                      RESERVED ON   : 25 AUGUST, 2026
                                      PRONOUNCED ON : 27 AUGUST, 2026
                 JUDGMENT :



                 1.    Appellant, original accused, challenges judgment and order

                 dated 12-05-2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2,

                 Jalna, in Special Case (PCA) No.1 of 2011 by which conviction has

                 been recorded for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of

                 Corruption Act (PC Act).
                                   {2}         CrAppeal-346-2016


                    BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2.     In brief, case of prosecution in trial Court was that,

complainant, in order to get some land owned by his father

transferred in his name, approached accused, a Talathi and for

carrying out necessary mutation entry, it is the case of prosecution

that, for the said work, accused demanded Rs.1,500/-, and as

complainant was not willing to pay bribe, he approached Anti

Corruption Bureau (ACB), lodged complaint exh.17, on the basis of

which, ACB authorities planned and executed trap, complaint was

filed against accused by the Investigating Officer and further

investigation was carried out and subsequently, accused was tried

vide above special case and he stood convicted for above offence.

Hence, the appeal by accused.

                          SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant/accused :

3.     Learned counsel for appellant would point out that, there is

false implication. That, there is no convincing, cogent and reliable

evidence to prove the charges. He would submit that, in view of the

charge, it was incumbent upon prosecution to prove very demand,

but here, there was no demand at all and thus, according to him,

case of prosecution collapsed then and there itself. On the point of
                                   {3}            CrAppeal-346-2016


demand, he invited attention of this Court to paragraph 1 of

examination-in-chief of complainant.        He also submitted that,

evidence of complainant and shadow pancha is full of material

omissions and contradictions.



4.    It is submitted that, specific defence of accused in trial Court

was that, he had cordial relations with father of complainant. That,

complainant and other siblings have agreed to pay the Rs.10,000/-

each to their father for recording the land in their name.            That,

informant herein, who is son of Court Witness Bhanudas Jadhav, had

paid merely Rs.8,500/- and therefore, at the instance of Court

Witness, accused had accepted the said amount. That, it was not a

bribe amount. That, even there is admission of complainant to that

extent on the point of he paying only Rs.8,500/-. Thus, according to

him, in view of the evidence of Court witness i.e. none other than

father of complainant, accused has probabilized defence by

answering to that extent while facing answers to the questions under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.      Consequently, learned counsel submits

that, accused has probabilized his defence and therefore, learned trial

Court ought to have accepted the same, but as it failed, he urges for

reconsideration of defence case by setting aside the impugned
                                  {4}             CrAppeal-346-2016


judgment.



On behalf of State :

5.     Learned APP would also took this Court through testimony of

complainant and would submit that, there was clear demand by

accused. That, evidence of complainant has to be read in its entirety

and not in isolation.    That, there is clear reference of demand

followed by acceptance and therefore, according to her, learned trial

Court has rightly accepted the case of prosecution and same needs no

interference.



6.    On the point of Court witness and credibility of this witness,

she would submit that his evidence has rightly discarded by learned

trial Court. For all above reasons, she urges to dismiss the appeal for

want of merits.



            BRIEF ACCOUNT EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT

7.    Re-appreciated the evidence. Though prosecution has adduced

evidence of as many of six witnesses, crucial evidence is of PW1

complainant and PW2 shadow pancha, which is decisive on the point

of demand as well as acceptance. Here, equal importance is of the
                                  {5}            CrAppeal-346-2016


evidence of Court witness i.e. in view of defence taken by accused.

Hence, testimonies of such witnesses are put to scrutiny.



8.    PW1 Janardhan Jadhav, who is examined at exh.16, in initial

examination-in-chief   deposed    about   approaching       accused   for

transferring 1.5 acre land owned by his father in his own name. He

claims that, during initial talks, accused told him to bring bond,

which was brought and handed over and after which he again claims

to have visited the office of accused to verify whether his work is

done and it is deposed that, accused demanded Rs.1,500/- from him.

Therefore, as he was unable to pay, he approached ACB and gave

complaint exh.17.

      In further examination-in-chief, he deposed that he alongwith

pancha had been to office of Talathi to make enquiry whether his

work was over and accused stated to pay the amount and get the

work done and they came back and informed the events to the

Investigating Officer. In paragraph 2 of the examination-in-chief, he

narrated events of demonstration of application of anthracene

powder to the currency notes and about he again going in the

company of shadow pancha Kulkarni to the office of accused.

However, in examination-in-chief, as pointed out, he deposed that,
                                   {6}              CrAppeal-346-2016


“he stated accused to get his amount and to do the work and

thereafter, handed over amount to accused which was said to be

accepted”. Thus, as pointed out, during the events of main trap,

there does not seem to be any demand by accused.                Further as

pointed out, though accused has initially twice approached accused,

when exact demand was raised has not been stated by him. Even in

cross-examination, complainant has admitted that, demand of cash

was made at the third visit, but as stated above, during the third visit,

there does not seem to be distinct demand by accused. He admitted

that, during visit to office of Talathi, 5-6 villagers were present and

conversation between him and accused took place in their presence.

But none of the villagers seems to have been examined.



9.    PW2 Vilas Kulkarni, shadow pancha, who is examined at

exh.19, claims to have acted as pancha.             In paragraph 2 of

examination-in-chief,    he   deposed      that,   Talathi    had       called

complainant with cash amount.            That, verification panchanama

exh.20 was drawn and he accompanied complainant to the office of

accused. There, complainant greeted accused and further asked him,

whether his work was over, upon which accused allegedly said that

his work would not be done unless he complies with demand and
                                  {7}             CrAppeal-346-2016


further said that, he would have to pay as decided earlier. (Such is

not the narrative of complainant himself). Then he deposed that,

complainant enquired how much amount is to be paid and accused

replied and demanded Rs.1,500/- and witness deposed that, upon

such reply, complainant told accused that, his father had been to sell

he-goat and he will pay the amount by selling the same. In further

examination-in-chief,   he   deposed    that,   after   application   of

anthracene powder to the currency, which was in possession of

complainant and pre-trap panchanama exh.22, he accompanied

complainant to the office of accused, who was found to be sitting on

a chair. Witness deposed that, complainant stated to him to reduce

the amount upon which accused said that it cannot be done and then

complainant stated that, he had brought the amount as per his say

and accused stated him to pay the amount.

      While under cross-examination, he also admitted that, during

the first conversation between complainant and accused, accused has

not started with demand of cash amount. He also admitted that, 2-3

persons were present in Talathi office during first visit and further

admitted that Police have noted names of those persons, but he does

not remember whether Police made enquiry with such persons.
                                 {8}            CrAppeal-346-2016


                             ANALYSIS

10.   Therefore, on carefully going through evidence of PW1

complainant and PW2 shadow pancha, as stated, complainant does

not speak of any demand and rather he himself makes an offer. Even

PW2 shadow pancha, at the time of demand verification, has

narrated a very different story than the one stated by complainant

himself.   Regarding the main trap, even he too states that after

occupying seats, complainant started discussion by saying that

amount should be reduced and when accused denied, according to

this witness, complainant himself has stated that he has brought

amount as per his say. But both PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow

pancha in cross-examination admitted that, there was no demand

during initial meeting.

      Resultantly, the very crucial and essential aspect like demand

comes under shadow of doubt. It is fairly settled position that, mere

recovery of tainted currency is of no avail unless demand is proved

and law to this extent has been time and again reiterated and the few

cases that can be named are 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
                                   {9}              CrAppeal-346-2016


Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC 574.



11.   Here, specific defence of accused is that, he indeed accepted

the amount from complainant but it was so done at the instance of

father of complainant. In support of such defence, reliance is placed

on the evidence of Court Witness Bhanudas Jadhav and it will be

appropriate to give brief account of Court Witness, which is at

exh.60.   This witness Bhanudas deposed that, he has 3 sons and 4

daughters. That, he effected partition of his land in the last summer

and it was settled that, his each son shall pay him Rs.10,000/- upon

which land would be transferred in their names.                 In further

examination-in-chief i.e. in paragraph 2, he stated that, he knew

accused and prior to 2 years, it was agreed that his sons should

deposit Rs.10,000/- each with Talathi and after collecting that

amount, Talathi should pay the amount to him. His other sons paid

the same, but Janardhan i.e. present complainant paid only

Rs.8,500/-. He demanded remaining amount from accused.

      In cross-examination at the hands of learned APP, he admitted

that, Investigating Officer did not record his statement. He denied a

suggestion that, it is not true that it was not agreed that his sons shall

deposit money with Talathi.        He expressed his ignorance about
                                 {10}             CrAppeal-346-2016


accused demanding bribe to the tune of Rs.1,500/- from his son

Janardhan.

      While under cross-examination at the hands of accused, he

admitted that, his son Janardhan was intending to apply for a well in

the Government Scheme and needed atleast two acres of land in his

own name and therefore, as only 1.5 acre land was standing in his

name, 50 Are land of their family was agreed to be mutated in his

name. He further deposed that, he accordingly executed partition

amongst his sons and daughters. He also deposed about accused

having cordial relations with his family members and therefore, he

was a mediator and his son Janardhan deposited Rs.8,500/- towards

his share, which he received from Talathi, who further told him that

he will recover remaining Rs.1,500/- from Janardhan, who was

avoiding to pay. He admitted that, it was agreed that, unless and

until amount of Rs.1,500/- is paid, the matter shall not be forwarded

for mutation.



12.   Learned counsel for appellant invited attention of this Court to

the cross-examination faced by PW1 complainant, more particularly

paragraph 5 wherein he admitted that, he has other siblings. He also

admitted that, six months prior to the incident, there were talks
                                  {11}            CrAppeal-346-2016


pertaining to recording lands in his name as well as in the name of

his brothers and sisters. He admitted that, it was decided in meeting

before Talathi that he would pay Rs.10,000/- each to his brothers and

sisters for recording the land in his name. He admitted that, he has

given Rs.10,000/- each to his brothers and sisters except his father in

the presence of very Talathi.   He admitted that, out of Rs.10,000/-,

an amount of Rs.8,500/- was only handed over by him to Talathi,

who had asked him to bring remaining Rs.1,500/-. It is categorically

admitted that, on the day when accused was caught, he has paid

remaining amount of Rs.1,500/- to Talathi.



13.   Thus, here, from the evidence of Court Witness, who is father

of complainant, defence put-forth by accused is sought to be

probabilized. As stated above, very complainant has also in cross-

examiantion admitted that, he paid only Rs.8,500/- out of

Rs.10,000/-, which was meant to be paid to his father through

Talathi and that Rs.1,500/- had remained balance and on the day of

trap, he had paid such amount to Talathi.



14.   Learned trial Court has disbelieved the above defence and one

comes across observations to that extent in paragraph 33 and 34 of
                                   {12}           CrAppeal-346-2016


impugned judgment. Reason assigned by trial Court is that, witness

was own over as complainant’s evidence was over on 03-02-2014

whereas Court Witness was examined on 21-11-2015 and the

deposition of Court Witness has no nexus with original complainant

and trap by ACB and so the defence so put-forth has not

probabilized.

      However,    as   stated   above,    not   only   Court     Witness

acknowledges the transaction to be done through accused, but his

own son complainant in paragraph 5 of cross-examination has

categorically admitted that an amount of Rs.1,500/-, which was due

to his father, was paid to the accused on the day of trap.            Such

admission has come from complainant in his cross-examination, who

is apparently examined by trial Court on 03-02-2014 i.e. much prior

to deposition of Court Witness. Further Court Witness has also

categorically stated that, there were cordial relations between him

and accused and said transaction has taken place on being mediated

by accused. Consequently, such defence through above witness

cannot be lightly brushed aside.



15.   It is fairly settled position that, in criminal jurisprudence and

trial, accused is merely expected to probabilize his defence and
                                  {13}             CrAppeal-346-2016


burden upon him is not as high as the primary burden on

prosecution.   Here, in the considered opinion of this Court, through

Court Witness, accused has discharged the said burden and therefore,

learned trial Court ought to have accepted the same, but it chose to

reject the same without assigning sound reasons.



                            SUMMATION

16.   To sum up, here, prosecution case fails to inspire confidence

for the reasons that, firstly demand itself is not cogently proved and

secondly, accused has succeeded in probabilizing his defence. For

such reasons, on re-appreciation of available evidence, this Court has

come to a conclusion that case of prosecution is not proved beyond

reasonable doubt.

      As learned trial Court has failed to consider and appreciate

available evidence in its correct perspective and has further failed to

appreciate defence of the accused, interference is called for.

Accordingly, following order is passed :



                               ORDER

I.    The appeal is allowed.
                                    {14}           CrAppeal-346-2016


II.    Conviction awarded to the appellant - Dilip Bhikanrao Solunke,
by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna in Special Case (PCA)
No.1 of 2011 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on
12-05-2016 stands quashed and set aside.


III.   Appellant stands acquitted of the offence punishable under 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act.


IV.    The bail bonds of appellant stand cancelled.

V.     Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the Legal
Representative of appellant after the statutory period.


VI. It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order

regarding disposal of Muddemal.



                                    ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                            JUDGE




SPT