THE STATE OF MAH and ORSversusYOURAJ BABURAO NILANGEKAR

2026:BHC-AUG:43447


                                                                    CriAppeal-368-2006
                                                   -1-

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.368 OF 2006

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through ACB, Latur,
                 District Latur                                   .. Appellant

                          Versus

                 Youraj s/o Baburao Nilangekar
                 Age: 56 years, Occu.: Service as
                 Draftsman, Z.P. M1 Division, Latur,
                 R/o. Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga,
                 District Latur.                                  .. Respondent

                                                  …
                 Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for appellant/State.
                 Mr. R. V. Gunale h/f Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent.
                                                  ...

                                                 CORAM :    ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                 Reserved on : 23.09.2026
                                                 Pronounced on : 24.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :-

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

                 order of acquittal dated 30.12.2005 passed by learned Special Judge,

                 Latur in Special (ACB) Case No.9 of 2002, thereby acquitting the

                 respondent herein from charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with

                 Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act [for short “P.C.

                 Act”].
                                                    CriAppeal-368-2006
                                 -2-

2.    In brief, case of prosecution in Trial Court was that, PW1

complainant was the owner of agricultural land and out of said land,

State had proposed to acquire 1 H 26 R land for Minor Irrigation

Project i.e. percolation tank. But, actually acquisition was made only

to the extent of 55 R land and remaining land was shown in the name

of one Nagorao Maruti Pawar and, therefore, he approached the

office of Minor Irrigation Department and there, the accused, who

was a clerk, allegedly demanded Rs.500/- bribe for forwarding the

proposal. Complaint to that extent was tendered by PW1 with ACB

authorities, who entertained the complaint, planned trap, executed it

and apprehended the accused. The accused was duly charge-sheeted

and tried for above referred offences vide Special Case No.9 of 2002.

The trial ended up in acquittal. Hence, the appeal by State

questioning the judgment and order of acquittal.


3.    Learned APP would point out that, here, the complainant has

deposed about his work with the accused and has also identified the

complaint filed by him, wherein there was an express reference to the

demand of bribe. That, thereafter, according to him, the complainant

did not support the prosecution. However, it is his submission that,

though the complainant turned hostile, his entire evidence cannot be

washed away. So much of the evidence, which supports the
                                                      CriAppeal-368-2006
                                  -3-

prosecution, can still be relied upon and put to use. In support of such

contention, he seeks reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of The State of Kerala vs. K.A. Abdul Rasheed, 2026

LiveLaw (SC) 374.


4.    Learned Counsel for the respondent would support the

judgment and order of learned Trial Court by pointing out that sine

qua non like demand itself is not proved beyond reasonable doubt

and he pointed out that complainant’s testimony is silent about

demand of bribe itself and, therefore, learned Trial Court rightly

acquitted the accused.


5.    To put it briefly, case of complainant is that, he had agricultural

land. State acquired 1 H 26 R land for percolation tank. However,

only 55 R land was shown to be acquired, whereas 70 R land was

shown in the name of one Nagorao Maruti Pawar and in that regard,

he approached office of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation

Department, Zilla Parishad, Sub Division, Latur. Said office was

required to comply the deficiencies in forwarding subsequent proposal

and in that regard it is alleged that on 10.05.2002, when he

approached Executive Engineer Patil to put up his grievance, it is

alleged that said officer Patil called accused, who was a clerk and said

officer Patil asked accused to forward the proposal, which accused
                                                      CriAppeal-368-2006
                                  -4-

agreed and asked complainant to furnish 5 copies of Award and to

give Rs.500/-, but he stated in complaint that accused took him aside

and asked him to pay Rs.500/- for said work and, therefore,

complaint was lodged followed by arrangement of trap.


6.    Complainant has adduced evidence at Exhibit-39, wherein in

initial part, he deposed about acquisition of his land, he approaching

office of Executive Engineer, meeting officer Patil, who in turn calling

accused - a clerk and making inquiry with him regarding the proposal

of acquisition. He testified that after verifying the file, accused told

that there were some objections and deficiencies in the file of

proposal, which will be required to be removed and asked

complainant to submit copies of 7/12 extract and five copies of

Award. He deposed that he told accused that he will not be in a

position to collect the documents as he is not acquainted with

anybody in Latur and, therefore, asked accused to collect the

documents and gave him Rs.200/- and also tendered copies of 7/12

extract and extract of 8A. But his proposal was not forwarded and

therefore, he approached ACB, met the officer, made oral grievance

and he was asked to come on the next day and on his oral complaint,

report was typed. He appended signature, which he identified. After

he deposed to this extent, learned APP seems to have put up leading
                                                    CriAppeal-368-2006
                                  -5-

questions to complainant as to whether it all happened that accused

demanded Rs.500/- to him as bribe for forwarding the proposal and

his answer was in negative.


7.    Trial Court has noted that, on repeatedly being asked, witness

was avoiding the answer and then finally deposed that according to

him, accused demanded amount of Rs.500/- for collecting the copies

of Award, panchanama and gave him Rs.200/- for collecting said

documents. Thereafter, it seems that, learned APP, after seeking

permission of the Trial Court, subjected his own witness complainant

to cross-examination, wherein prosecution case was put up by putting

leading questions and he has answered the same in affirmative. He

also identified complaint Exhibit-40.

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

deposed that there is variance between his complaint which was

orally disclosed and complaint Exhibit-40 referred to him in the

examination-in-chief and that, he was reading Exhibit-40 for the first

time only. He also admitted that accused had not demanded any

amount from him and he himself gave it to the accused.


8.    Thus, here, complainant has not supported prosecution.

Though he gave complaint and identified it to be carrying his

signature, in examination-in-chief itself, he does not speak about
                                                           CriAppeal-368-2006
                                   -6-

demand of bribe of Rs.500/- being raised by accused. As stated above,

he also admitted that accused did not demand amount to him and he

on his own accord gave him. In examination-in-chief also he has

stated that he has given Rs.200/- initially for collection of documents

as he was not acquainted with the place. Consequently, complainant

has not supported prosecution.


9.    Learned    APP    was    very      vociferous   in   submitting   that

complainant has identified his complaint in the Court and, therefore,

even if he retracted at later point of time, his initial deposition can be

acted upon and relied too. In this regard, he sought reliance on above

referred ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court.


10.   True it is that, it is fairly settled now that the Court need not

discard the entire evidence of a hostile witness and that so much part

of his testimony which favours the prosecution can definitely be acted

upon and relied upon. However, it is noticed that, in the initial part,

till being declared hostile, the complainant’s examination-in-chief is

found to be silent about the accused demanding a bribe of Rs.500/-

for the work. In the judgment relied upon by the learned APP, it has

been categorically observed that if a complainant prevaricates or turns

hostile regarding the specific demand at the time of the trap, the prior

demand established through the First Information Statement should
                                                     CriAppeal-368-2006
                                  -7-

be affirmed in the Court, and that should be followed by

corroboration from an independent witness, which itself would be

sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. But, here,

complainant’s initial examination-in-chief is firstly silent about any

demand of bribe of Rs.500/-. There is no solemn affirmation about

demand of bribe in his testimony in the Court. Only had he affirmed

the contents of FIR by stating that there was demand of bribe and that

he had accordingly lodged the complaint, the above ruling could have

been applied. Consequently, mere identification of signature over

complaint is not sufficient to hold that the contents reflected therein

in the complaint are also stated by complainant in the witness box.

For above reasons, the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court cannot be put to

use here.


11.   Here, as pointed out and it is also emerging from the complaint

as well as from the testimony of complainant that, complainant has

initially approached Executive Engineer Patil and put up his

grievance, upon which accused was said to be summoned and in

complaint, it is stated that, accused took complainant aside and then

demanded Rs.500/-. If it was so, then Executive Engineer Patil was

the important witness, who would have confirmed visit of

complainant with grievance and thereafter, complainant meeting
                                                     CriAppeal-368-2006
                                  -8-

accused. As pointed out said Executive Engineer Patil is not examined.


12.   Another feature of this case is that, in complaint, there is

reference of demand of Rs.500/-, but only Rs.200/- tainted currency

is said to be accepted by accused. There is no material to suggest that

initial demand was brought down from Rs.500/- to Rs.200/- and the

said was duly accepted by accused.


13.   Consequently, here, complainant has retracted and has failed to

depose about initial demand in his examination-in-chief and

therefore, even his testimony to that extent, i.e. prior to he being

declared hostile, cannot be taken aid of and applied for recording

guilt of the accused. Resultantly, case of prosecution about demand is

not proved beyond reasonable doubt. When initial demand is not

proved, case of prosecution suffers set back.


14.   Though learned APP submitted that there is corroboration from

the testimony of PW2 shadow panch, however, on carefully

examining his testimony, it is noticed that, according to complainant,

during conversation between complainant and accused when they

had come out of the office, accused allegedly said “whether he has

brought it” and thereafter, complainant handed over the tainted

currency. But, PW2 speaks about “whether he has brought something
                                                   CriAppeal-368-2006
                                 -9-

of his”. Therefore, on the point of demand also, testimony of PW2

differs from what is stated by complainant in paragraph No.7.

Therefore, on such count also doubt arises about actual demand.


15.   In the light of above discussion and the quality of material

discussed above and bearing in mind principles to be applied while

dealing with appeal against acquittal, this Court does not find any

merit in the appeal so as to interfere by allowing the appeal. Hence

the following order :-


                               ORDER


            .      Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.



                                        [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



scm