THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.versusPANDURANG RAMCHANDRA WAMNE.

2026:BHC-AUG:17728


                                                                     CriAppeal-357-2016
                                                   -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2016

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Anti-Corruption Bureau,
                 Aurangabad.                                      … Appellant

                       Versus

                 Pandurang s/o Ramchandra Wamne,
                 Age 50 years, Occupation : Block Education Officer,
                 Gat Sadhan Kendra, Gangapur,
                 District Aurangabad.                             … Respondent
                                                                  [Ori. Accused]
                                                  …..
                             Mr. V. M. Jaware, APP for the Appellant-State.
                      Mr. C. P. Sengaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent-Accused.
                                                  .....

                                         CORAM :         ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         Reserved on         : 21.04.2026
                                         Pronounced on       : 23.04.2026
                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.    State hereby challenges the judgment and order dated

                 28.09.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Vaijapur in Special Case

                 (PC) No. 11 of 2012 acquitting respondent from charges under

                 Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

                 1988 (PC Act).



                 2.    In short, prosecution was launched against present respondent

                 on complaint of PW1 Shinde that, for recommendation of

                 continuation of his service as Special Teacher, there was demand of
                                                      CriAppeal-357-2016
                                  -2-

Rs.2,500/- by accused Wamne who was Block Education Officer. As

complainant was not willing, he approached ACB and reported

demand on the basis of which, trap was planned, necessary

instructions were issued and on execution of trap, accused was

apprehended and tried, but at trial came to be acquitted. Hence the

instant appeal.



3.    Learned APP submitted that, case of prosecution was proved

beyond reasonable doubt. That, there was trustworthy and reliable

evidence on the point of both, demand as well as acceptance.

According to him, complainant and both panchas are lending support

to each other. That, prior to trap, verification was got done and only

thereafter trap was laid and it was also successful. According to him,

essentials for attracting the charges were available but only due to

incorrect appreciation, trial ended up in acquittal. He pointed out

that, sanctioning authority was also examined and said authority

deposed about application of mind to the papers and according

sanction, but trial court has held it to be defective. According to him,

too technical approach was adopted by trial court and for above

reasons, he seeks interference by allowing the appeal.
                                                     CriAppeal-357-2016
                                  -3-

4.    In answer to above, learned counsel for respondent accused

would submit that firstly, there was no work with accused and he was

not competent to make any recommendations as claimed by PW1. He

pointed out that, in fact Chief Executive Officer was the appropriate

authority and therefore, it is his submission that, there was no motive

to put up demand or to accept money. He pointed out that, in support

of ‘no work with accused’, defence witness was also examined. On this

point, he seeks reliance of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of G. V. Nanjundiah v. State (Delhi Administration) 1987 (suppl)

SCC 266.



5.    It is his next submission that here, it was necessary for

prosecution to lend support to the testimony of complainant, who was

interested witness, on the point of demand. However, according to

him, here, regular pancha who had aided ACB in previous cases was

made shadow pancha and as such he was not independent witness

and was thus not worthy of credence. On this count, learned counsel

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

State of Gujarat through CBI v. Kumudchandra Pranjivan Shah

(1997) SCC (Cri) 750.
                                                      CriAppeal-357-2016
                                  -4-

6.    As regards to demand is concerned, he submitted that there

was prior offer, rather than demand, in the vicinity of bus stand. He

pointed out that immediate explanation of thrusting was tendered by

the accused and it assumes significance and as such, defence was

probabilized.



7.    On the point of sanction, he submitted that sanctioning

authority has itself admitted that, competent authority to accord

sanction for an official below basic pay of Rs.10,650/- is Deputy Chief

Minister, and for those above it, Chief Minister is the sanctioning

authority and therefore, according to him, present witness was not

competent to accord sanction and as such it being defective, trial

court rightly held sanction to be invalid. For said reasons, he supports

the judgment of acquittal and prays to dismiss the appeal for want of

merits.



8.    On the lines of above submissions, evidence on record is put to

scrutiny and re-appreciated the same. The substratum of prosecution

version is that, complainant who was engaged as Special Teacher, for

further continuation of service, had tendered application for

recommendation, that too, not to CEO but to accused who was Block

Education Officer. Moreover, it has come in the prosecution evidence
                                                      CriAppeal-357-2016
                                  -5-

itself, i.e. more particularly in the evidence of PW3 sanctioning

authority that, only Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is empowered for

continuation of service. Complainant himself in his cross para 16 has

admitted that Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad was issuing letter

of appointment. He has also admitted in same para that, accused had

not given recommendation to his initial appointment and that accused

was not the only Block Education Officer from the date of his

appointment. Therefore, taking his such answers into consideration,

as pointed out, it is clearly emerging that accused was not competent

to recommend for appointment and therefore, motive to raise demand

of bribe comes under shadow of doubt, more particularly when

complainant himself has admitted that it was CEO who was

competent.



9.    On the point of demand, though there is verification of demand

got done, as regards to main trap is concerned, in para 14 of chief,

complainant has stated that, he himself made call to the accused and

learnt about accused to be in the vicinity of bus stand. He has

narrated the sequence of events that took place at bus stand in para

14 wherein he stated that, accused had asked him to come inside the

bus and therefore, he entered the bus with the pancha and found

accused sitting near the window of conductor seat. Here, before any
                                                     CriAppeal-357-2016
                                  -6-

demand, this witness-complainant has stated that he told complainant

that he has brought the amount as per directions. In fact, inside the

bus or in the vicinity of bus stand, there was no demand by accused.

On the contrary, going by the sequence narrated by the complainant

in para 14, as stated above, prior to any demand by accused,

complainant himself has stated that he has brought the amount.

Therefore, crucial aspect of demand itself also comes under shadow of

doubt.



10.   In cases of such nature, complainant being interested witness,

corroboration from independent corner is to be insisted for. But, here,

shadow pancha PW2 has admitted that he has previously also acted as

shadow pancha for ACB in other cases. In view of judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Kumudchandra

(supra), when there is deployment of stock pancha, his testimony is

looked upon with suspension. Even the learned trial Judge has noted

that his testimony is full of falsehood and therefore, there cannot be

said to be sound support to the testimony of complainant.



11.   As regards to sanction is concerned, though PW3 has deposed

about receiving crime papers, applying his mind and according

sanction, in cross para 2, he has admitted about the circular issued by
                                                      CriAppeal-357-2016
                                   -7-

State Government dated 02.01.2000 regarding issuance of sanction

order wherein it has been mentioned that, as per salary of public

servant, approval is by Deputy C.M. or C.M. and that. as accused was

serving as Class-II officer, approval of Deputy C.M. was necessary. His

such answer renders the very aspect of sanction to be doubtful.



12.   To sum up, here, there is doubt about initial demand and there

is also doubt about very motive as accused was not competent to

recommend. Secondly, prior to demand there is offer. Thirdly, there

is no corroboration to the complainant’s evidence and moreover

services of habitual pancha are extracted. Lastly, sanction is not by

proper authority. The cumulative effect of above discussion is that,

prosecution has failed to bring home the charges by proving its case

beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, no fault can be attributed to

trial court for according acquittal. Hence, following order :

                                ORDER

               The Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre