THE STATE OF MAHversusASHOK GANPAT LABADE

2026:BHC-AUG:41328


                                                      {1}        CrAppeal-458-2006


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2006

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through Dy. S.P.,
                 Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalna.                   ….Appellant

                             Versus

                 Ashok s/o Ganpat Labade
                 Age : 35 years, Occu.: Service in
                 Tahsil Office, Mantha, R/o.Partur,
                 Tq.Partur, District Jalna.                       …..Respondent

                                               …..
                 Mr.G.O.Wattamwar, APP for Appellant.
                 Ms.Harsha R.Lomte h/f. Mr.Mayur Salunke, Advocate for
                 Respondent.
                                               …..

                                      CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                      RESERVED ON   : 07 SEPTEMBER, 2026
                                      PRONOUNCED ON : 08 SEPTEMBER, 2026
                 JUDGMENT :



                 1.    State challenges Judgment and order dated 21-01-2006 passed

                 by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalna in Special Case No.9 of 2003

                 [PCA], acquitting accused from charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d),

                 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
                                  {2}            CrAppeal-458-2006




                    BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE


2.     Before trial Court, case of prosecution was that, complainant

and some villagers in village Pangra had formed a housing society.

That, they want to make registration of society in the office of the

Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Partur. That, for the

said purpose, he was in need of caste certificate in the name of his

wife. Therefore, he went to the office of Tahsildar at Mantha and

filed application alongwith necessary documents for sending the

proposal to Sub-Divisional Office (Revenue) at Partur.         That, for

doing the said work, accused, a Clerk working in Tahsil office

Mantha, demanded bribe of Rs.200/-. On receipt of complaint to

that extent from PW4 complainant, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB)

authorities planned and executed trap by engaging shadow pancha

PW1 and giving necessary instructions to PW4 complainant and PW1

shadow pancha. Accused was apprehended resulting into registration

of crime by ACB Officer, which was subsequently investigated and

accused was chargesheeted and tried by the above Court and the trial

ended up in acquittal. Hence,the appeal.
                                   {3}            CrAppeal-458-2006


                            SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant State :

3.     Learned APP apprised about prosecution case in trial court. He

took this Court through testimony of complainant and shadow

pancha and would submit that, both demand and acceptance is duly

proved. He pointed out that, though complainant did not completely

support prosecution in trial Court, his entire evidence ought not to

have been discarded.      According to him, so much part of the

testimony, which deserves consideration and was in consonance with

the story of prosecution, ought to have been applied by the learned

trial Court, but according to him, it failed to do so. On this count, he

seeks reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 330.

      He also took this Court through testimony of shadow pancha

and would submit that, on the point of demand and acceptance,

both complainant and shadow pancha are consistent, but due to

incorrect appreciation, such points are answered in negative by the

learned trial Court.

      At the end, he would submit that, by examining Sanctioning

Authority even prosecution has proved that there was valid sanction,

but according to him, learned trial Court acquitted the accused and
                                 {4}           CrAppeal-458-2006


therefore, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside impugned

Judgment.



On behalf of Respondent Accused :

4.        Learned counsel for respondent/accused would justify the

Judgment and order of acquittal. She too took this Court through

testimony of complainant and shadow pancha and the answers given

by them in cross-examination and then would submit that,

apparently initial demand is not proved by the prosecution. Pointing

to the evidence of shadow pancha, she would submit that, this

witness has admitted that, he was away when the events of demand

and acceptance took place at the time of main trap.         That, this

witness has admitted that, the amount accepted was not bribe

amount. She pointed out that, infact complainant himself has not

supported prosecution and there are vital admissions in the cross-

examination. Hence, for want of merits, she prays to dismiss the

appeal.



                              ANALYSIS

5.    Re-appreciated the evidence.       Prosecution has adduced

evidence of as many as five witnesses i.e PW1 Santosh Sitaram
                                   {5}            CrAppeal-458-2006


Shirgude is shadow pancha, PW2 Mary Nilima Keirkatta is

Sanctioning Authority, PW3 Ramdas Jaiuwant Maghade is Tahsildar,

PW4 Leeladhar Aakatrao Gadadhe is Complainant and PW5

Hanumant Panditrao Kulkarni is Investigating Officer.



6.    In view of nature of charge, it is essential for prosecution to

prove that there was demand of bribe followed by its acceptance. On

this count, if PW4 complainant’s evidence at exh.23 is put to scrutiny,

it appears that, complainant was desirous of procuring caste

certificate in the name of his wife so as to avail benefits of the

scheme run by the Government and he claims to have approached

accused 4-5 times in that regard. In examination-in-chief itself, he

stated that, during first meeting, accused said that for obtaining caste

certificate, amount is required to be spent. During such meeting,

apparently no quantum allegedly stated by accused as witness has

stated that, during subsequent visit, it was said that amount of

Rs.200/- would be required to be spent. But after stating so much,

witness seems to have stated in examination-in-chief itself that, he

does not remember as to how much amount he has to pay to

accused, about he paying Rs.150/- to accused, receiving no receipt in

exchange and therefore, finding him not supporting, learned APP
                                  {6}             CrAppeal-458-2006


seems to have obtained permission of the trial Court to cross-examine

complainant himself.      However, surprisingly though he admitted

during cross-examination at the hands learned APP that, during first

visit, accused demanded Rs.150/-, he answered that it was towards

fees for issuing application of caste certificate. Witness has again

admitted that, work would not be done unless he paid Rs.200/-.

Learned trial Court has noted the demeanour of the witness and in

further cross-examination, he admitted that, he has made oral

complaint with ACB, which was further reduced in writing. Then

virtually to all suggestions, he has answered in affirmative, but again

stated that he does not remember whether shadow pancha also

stated about acceptance of amount and also admitted that, at that

time he kept the tainted currency in the register and attention of

accused was towards it.

      In cross-examination at the hands of defence, he has also

admitted to all suggestions put to him.

      Therefore, this witness is sometimes refusing to support

prosecution, sometimes supporting prosecution and also supporting

defence version and therefore, unworthy of credence.



7.    PW1 Shadow pancha, who is examined at exh.13, as pointed
                                   {7}             CrAppeal-458-2006


out, in cross-examination has stated that, he had acted as a pancha in

a previous complaint by present complainant.        As pointed out, he

has also admitted in cross-examiantion that while complainant was

putting tainted currency in the register, accused was unaware of it

and was busy in taking out the papers from cupboard. Therefore, his

such answers show that there is every possibility of planting of

currency.   Consequently, the aspect of acceptance has also come

under shadow of doubt.



8.    Even on comparative analysis of evidence of PW4 complainant

and PW1 shadow pancha on the points of events that took place

during main trap, it is noticed that they are not consistent.



9.    Therefore, here, sine qua non like demand and acceptance is

not cogently proved and therefore, submission of learned APP that

the same was proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore,

presumption available under the Act has to be applied, has no force.

The very aspect of demand and acceptance is not cogently proved

before the trial Court.
                                  {8}           CrAppeal-458-2006


10.   I have gone through the ruling cited by the learned APP,

however, the facts in the said ruling and the case in hand are quite

distinguishable.



11.   Perused the Judgment under challenge. Learned trial Court

has carefully appreciated evidence adduced by the prosecution.

Sound reasons are assigned while recording findings. There is no

illegality or perversity so as to interfere in the impugned Judgment.

Hence, for want of merits, appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, following order is passed :



                               ORDER

                   Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.



                                  ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
                                          JUDGE




SPT