THE STATE OF MAHversusSONA MAGAN DHANGAR

2026:BHC-AUG:11687
                                                                    APPEAL-351-2010
                                              -1-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2010

            The State of Maharashtra,
            Through Anti Corruption Bureau,
            District Jalgaon.                                   … Appellant

                       Versus
            Sona S/o. Magan Dhangar,
            Age : 44 years, Occu. : Service,
            Police Head Constable B. No. 1008,
            Yawal Police Station, District Jalgaon.             … Respondent.
                                                                [Orig. Accused]

                                             …..
            Mr. B.B. Bhise, APP for Appellant – State.
            Mr. M.A. Tandale, Advocate for Respondent.
                                             …..
                                          CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                   RESERVED ON : 17 MARCH 2026
                                PRONOUNCED ON : 18 MARCH 2026

            JUDGMENT :

            1.          In this appeal by State, there is challenge to the judgment

            and order dated 31.10.2009 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional

            Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No. 13 of

            2007 acquitting the respondent from charges under section 7, 13(1)

            (d) read with section13(2) of P.C. Act.



            2.          In short, it is the case of prosecution that, for avoiding

            action, on account of receipt of complaint from S.T. Driver, accused a

            Constable, demanded bribe of Rs.500/-. Complainant as was not
                                                        APPEAL-351-2010
                                   -2-

willing to pay bribe, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau, who

entertained    his   complaint,   planned   and   executed   trap,   and

thereafter, charge sheeted accused. Accused was made to face trial

vide above special case, in which prosecution adduced evidence of in

all four witnesses and also relied on documentary evidence.



           On appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court

reached to a finding that prosecution had failed to adduce cogent,

convincing and reliable evidence, and thereafter, acquitted accused,

which is the subject matter of instant appeal.



3.            Learned APP pointed out that, there is no dispute that

accused a constable was a public servant. That, to avoid any action

against complainant on the basis of complaint received from S.T.

driver, there was demand of bribe. That, there was prompt lodgment

of complaint to that extent. According to him, Anti Corruption

Authorities i.e. PW4 planned trap, summoned and arranged panchas

and necessary instructions were given to complainant as well as

shadow panch about the procedure of trap.



4.            He further submitted that, both complainant and shadow

panch in their evidence had deposed about demand being made by

accused. That, currency was found in possession of accused and as

such, it is his submission that there is both demand as well as
                                                          APPEAL-351-2010
                                   -3-

acceptance.



5.            He further pointed out that, learned trial Court has

already held that sanction was accorded by competent authority that

too after due application of mind and therefore sanction to be valid.

Lastly he submitted that, there is incorrect appreciation of evidence

of complainant as well as shadow panch and some minor variances

are taken into account for disbelieving the case of prosecution and

hence he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned

judgment and order.



6.            Learned counsel for respondent accused would support

the judgment and order of learned trial Court by pointing out that,

initial demand has not been proved by adducing cogent and reliable

evidence. Moreover, complainant and shadow panch are not

consistent and are at variance on material counts. Therefore, learned

trial Court refused to rely on their testimony. He pointed out that,

defence was of thrusting, and even defence witness was examined by

accused, and as such, learned trial Court committed no error in

acquitting the accused.



7.            Heard. Perused the record. Re-appreciated the evidence.

As usual evidence of complainant and shadow panch is of

significance.   More   particularly,     complainant   being   interested
                                                       APPEAL-351-2010
                                  -4-

witness, there has to be sufficient corroboration from shadow panch,

who is independent witness. Keeping such legal requirements in

mind, evidence is put to security, it is noticed that, firstly

complainant had telephonic conversation with accused during which

demand was said to be raised. However, CDR and SDR has not been

collected in this case.



8.          Further, when complainant and shadow panch were in

each other’s company, they were expected to lend support to each

other, but that is not so in this case. According to complainant, he

and panch walked to the police station and went inside the police

station i.e. in the lock up room. In paragraph no.8 of the examination

in chief, he narrated the events that took place inside the police

station. According to him, accused asked him whether his work was

done as told. Therefore, this does not amount to demand of bribe and

such statement is ambiguous leading to various inferences. Further

according to him, he paid tainted currency, which accused accepted

and initially kept it on his lap, and thereafter put it in the pocket.

Whereas, PW2 shadow panch, who was said to be in his company,

does not narrate such sequence. On the contrary he states that, after

phone call being made by complainant, they initially went towards

the police station by walk and as accused was not meet there, they

waited there, but accused did not come there. Therefore, as
                                                        APPEAL-351-2010
                                  -5-

submitted, witnesses have not consistent about the sequence of

events. That apart, in paragraph no. 20 of the cross examination of

complainant, he admitted that, his conversation with complainant on

phone was not heard by shadow panch. Some material omissions are

brought in paragraph no. 21 like “have you brought as told”; saying

to accused money is brought and where it should be paid. Similar

omissions are also brought in paragraph no. 24 i.e. post trap during

which raiding party asked panch, who accepted the money as he

stated that in his presence this was not asked. He also admitted that,

in his statement to police he had not informed that accused accepted

the money and keeping on the lap.



9.          As regards to PW2 is concerned, he is the shadow panch,

but in his examination in chief, in paragraph no. 6, he stated that,

when he accompanied complainant near Falaknagar, he himself and

complainant went towards S.T.D. booth and from there complainant

had talked on telephone and he learnt from complainant that accused

called near the police station, and therefore, they went towards police

station, but in spite of waiting there, accused did not come there, and

therefore complainant and he entered the police station. According to

this witness, inside the police station, accused asked whether amount

has been brought and to pay it, such is not the version of

complainant. Further according to him, after accepting the tainted
                                                        APPEAL-351-2010
                                    -6-

currency, accused directing pocketed it i.e. it was not kept on the lap

initially after acceptance as is stated by complainant. In examination

in chief, he has improvised that accused asked complainant to come

near the gate of police station. In paragraph no. 20 of the

examination-in-chief itself, he stated that, after entering the police

station, complainant on his own accord first talked to accused “Dada I

have brought money and whether he would accept it”. He also

admitted that, pant of accused was not subjected to examination to

find traces of anthracene powder.



10.         Therefore, what is emerging from the above evidence of

both the witnesses is that, here PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow

panch are not consistent. They are at variance on material counts as

discussed above.



11.         Here, accused seems to have adduced evidence of DW1

Somnath to probabilize the defence of thrusting. Nothing adverse was

involved in his cross by learned APP. This witness has stated about

saying two persons approaching complainant while he was working

and one of them keeping currency on his lap. Therefore, here, by

adducing witness working in the same police station, case of

thrusting has been probabilized.



12.         Consequently, here, though sanction is said to be valid,
                                                        APPEAL-351-2010
                                   -7-

for above reasons, case of prosecution is not proved beyond

reasonable doubt. Crucial witnesses like complainant and shadow

panch are inconsistent and are at variance on material counts

rendering story of prosecution doubtful.



13.         Perused the judgment. It seems that, learned trial Court

has appreciated the entire evidence and thereafter noticed above

shortfalls in the prosecution case. The view taken by learned trial

Court is the only possible view that could emerge even on re-

appreciation of evidence. Consequently, no case being made out,

hence, the following order is passed : -


                                 ORDER

                The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.



                                         (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)




Tandale