THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusASHOK PANDURANG GADEKAR

2026:BHC-AUG:9039
                                                                           APEAL-48-2015.odt




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2015

          The State of Maharashtra, through
          Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad (City).          ...Appellant

                Versus

          Ashok Pandurang Gadekar,
          Age 39 years, Occu. Service,
          R/o Plot No. 7, Shiveshwar Colony,
          Jadhvwadi, Aurangabad                             ...Respondent

                                              ***
           • Mr. B. V. Virdhe, APP for Appellant/State
           • Ms. Monica Bagwe h/f Mr. C. P. Sengaonkar, Advocate for the
             Respondent No.
                                              ***

                                      CORAM         : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
                                      RESERVED ON   : FEBRUARY 26, 2026
                                      PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 04, 2026

          JUDGMENT :

          1.          State hereby takes exception to judgment and order dated

          28.02.2014 passed in Special Case No. 17/2010 by Special Judge,

          Aurangabad, acquitting accused from charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(2)

          read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.


          2.          In   brief   prosecution    was    launched   against       present

          Respondent on receipt of complaint from PW 1 - hotel owner, that, police

          constable was party to the raid to his hotel at midnight on 31.07.2010.

          Some customers were rounded up and taken to police station along with

                                          PAGE 1 OF 10
                                                            APEAL-48-2015.odt




him on accusations for violating provisions of Bombay Police Act. It is a

specific case of prosecution that, accused, who was a constable,

threatened PW 1 to implicate and charge-sheet complainant, to avoid

said action and there was said to be demand of Rs.5,000/-, which was

subsequently on negotiations brought down to Rs.2,500/-. This was

reported by PW 1 to ACB, who further laid trap, executed it and accused

came to be apprehended, charge-sheeted, tried but acquitted. Hence, the

Appeal.


3.         Learned APP would point out that, undisputedly accused

was a police constable and thus a public servant. That, he demanded

bribe to avoid action. That, complainant reported it to ACB, who

initiated action. According to learned APP, in presence of panch accused

had made demand of bribe and, therefore, after due verification of

demand, further main trap was laid. That, it was also successful.

According to him, both witnesses are consistent, however, by drawing

inferences on assumption and presumption, which are contrary to

evidence on record, case of prosecution has been disbelieved.


4.         He pointed out that, there was demand as well as

acceptance. That, undue importance has been given to the aspect of

anthracene traces not found to the pen, which was said to be in shirt

pocket wherein tainted currency was kept. That, even undue

                               PAGE 2 OF 10
                                                               APEAL-48-2015.odt




importance has been given to the location, where panchnamas were

drawn. That, variances were not material.


5.         As regards to sanction is concerned, he submitted that,

learned Trial Court recorded a finding that, sanction was valid and

consequently submitted that, when there was demand and acceptance,

which was cogently proved, guilt of accused ought to have been

fastened. However, due to incorrect approach and appreciation of

evidence as well as law, trial ended up in acquittal and hence, he seeks

indulgence in this Appeal.


6.         In answer to above, learned Counsel for Respondents –

Accused would submit that, here motive itself was not established as no

action at all was initiated so as to demand bribe. She pointed out that,

further accused was merely a constable and not investigating officer or

police inspector to take action or file charge-sheet. Therefore, very

question of competence of accused to threaten and demand bribe comes

under shadow of doubt. She further pointed out that, moreover,

complainant himself had faced legal action five times for violating the

provisions of law. Therefore, complaint is out of annoyance.


7.         As regards to demand is concerned, she would point out

that, the same itself has come under shadow of doubt. That, accused



                               PAGE 3 OF 10
                                                              APEAL-48-2015.odt




had not been to hotel on the alleged day and he has examined witness

on his behalf namely, Shivshankar Jaiswal, who was none other relative

of complainant himself on above point. Therefore, visit of accused to the

hotel of complainant itself rendered doubtful.


8.          She pointed out that, here prosecution story shows that,

exercise of verification was done multiple times. However, during none

of the alleged meeting, there was direct demand of bribe and it is so

emerging from the prosecution evidence itself. She pointed out that,

there is variance in the evidence of complainant and shadow panch as to

where pre-trap panchnama was drawn. That, even investigating officer

is giving different version to that extent, therefore, story of prosecution

of trap to be successful was doubtful. She lastly submitted that, learned

Trial Court correctly appreciated available evidence and has not

committed error whatsoever in acquitting the accused and prays to

dismiss the Appeal for want of merits.


9.          On above lines, evidence on record put to scrutiny.


10.         In view of nature of charge and accusations, evidence of

complainant and shadow panch is crucial.

            PW 1 is the complainant and he is examined at Exhibit 21,

where he narrated about raid to his hotel on the night of 31.07.2010 and



                                PAGE 4 OF 10
                                                            APEAL-48-2015.odt




some customers taken to police station along with him. According to

him, accused a police constable told him that, he would be charge-

sheeted and to avoid the same, he would have to pay Rs.5,000/-, which

on expressed to be on higher side by the complainant was negotiated

and bought down to Rs.2,500/-. Accused himself assured to come to

collect bribe amount but before that, he lodged complaint. In his further

chief, he stated that, ACB officer told him to borrow time for collecting

money and immediately come to the office and report demand. He stated

that, while he was in the company of shadow panch Jadhav, accused

came and asked whether he has arranged Rs.2,500/-. Thereafter, as

directed, he left with panch to arrange and asked accused to sit in the

hotel and then he claims that, he and panch went to the ACB office and

passed information. However, at what time all above incidences took

places is not stated by this witness. In paragraph 6, he narrated the

events took place after he came back from ACB office and this shown to

have happened around 05.30 pm. He claims that, that time accused

asked him to pay amount and he removed and after accused accepted it,

he gave signal followed by arrival of raiding party.


            While under cross, he admitted that, previously five times

CIDCO police station has initiated action against him for ladies bar.

Omissions are brought in paragraph 8 to the extent of he informing


                                PAGE 5 OF 10
                                                             APEAL-48-2015.odt




police on the day of demand verification that, he had called accused on

phone who told him that, he is busy in bandobast and would come next

day. He is unable to state why such portion is missing from his

statement. He is unable to state distance between his hotel and ACB

office. He is also unable to remember about presence of panchas during

demand verification. He also surprising answered that, he does

remember whether he stated in his statement that, accused accepted

the bribe amount and kept in his chest pocket. Therefore, above are the

material omissions, which goes to the root of prosecution case.


11.        PW 2 shadow panch, who is examined at Exhibit 33, in his

initial chief stated about visiting ACB office, getting introduced to

complainant, signing over the complaint, hearing the story of

complainant about bribe and in paragraph 4, he stated that, he

accompanied complainant to the hotel at around 03.30 pm. while

raiding party was waiting in lay 200 mtrs away. That time accused

came and he stated that, initially complainant told accused that, he was

waiting for him yesterday, upon which accused said that, he was busy in

bandobast and thereafter allegedly asked whether he had arranged

Rs.2,500/- upon which complainant told him to sit for a while and that

he would arrange the amount and he left and even he followed

complainant and they both went towards the raiding party on the


                               PAGE 6 OF 10
                                                           APEAL-48-2015.odt




motorcycle. He stated that, there in the Government vehicle the I.O.

prepared demand verification panchnama Exhibit 35. Then he stated

that, currency were obtained from complainant, then anthracene

powder was applied, procedure explained to them and they both again

went back to hotel at around 05.20 pm and there he claims that,

accused asked why you were so late and then complainant told that, he

had no money and, therefore, he had been to arrange the same.

Thereafter again accused said to complainant if he has brought the

amount, then it should be given to him, upon which complainant gave

and accused accepted and thereafter signal was relayed.


           While under cross, witnesses has admitted that, at the time

of first demand verification, there were several customers in the hotel

and he had not heard the conversation between complainant and

accused, which had taken place on mobile phone. According to him, first

demand took place in the night and second demand took place during

the day time. Even during second demand, there were 10 customers,

however, in cross he admitted that, complainant and accused had no

talk with respect to the reason for which demand of bribe was raised but

in paragraph 11 he is unable to state whether amount given by

complainant is bribe amount or not.


12.        Therefore, on analyzing above evidence, firstly, there is

                              PAGE 7 OF 10
                                                             APEAL-48-2015.odt




variance in the testimony of PW 1 and 2. According to PW 1, after

borrowing time to arrange money, they went to the office of ACB,

however, PW2 stated that, after borrowing time to arrange money, they

both went towards the raiding party, which was waiting in lay and

demand verification panchnama was drawn in the vehicle itself.

Therefore, aspect of demand verification has come under shadow of

doubt. As stated, there are material omission in the testimony of

complainant, who is paragraph 8, has admitted that, he cannot assign

reason as to why in his statement before police, it is not mentioned that,

accused accepted bribe by his right hand and kept it in the left pocket.

He is also unable to assign why this statement is silent about he having

telephonic call with accused. Even, as discussed in the testimony of

shadow panch, there is admission in cross that during telephonic

conversation between complainant and accused, he could not hear their

conversation. All these omission got proved through I.O.


13.         As regard to point of motive to put up demand of bribe,

there is force because complainant is first is shown to be police

constable. There is nothing on record to show what action was initiated

against complainant so as to threaten him to pay bribe or compel him to

pay bribe. On the contrary, it has come on record that, complainant

himself has checkered history of registration of crime lodged against


                               PAGE 8 OF 10
                                                               APEAL-48-2015.odt




him for violating the provisions of law.




14.         By examining defence witness DW 1, very presence of

accused during the night of 31.07.2010 in which some customers and

accused were allegedly taken to the police station, followed by threat to

charge-sheet him and to avoid bribe being demanded, such story of

complainant is also rendered doubtful on the testimony of DW 1 as he

stated that, on that day, complainant had asked him to visit his hotel as

he was not there and some matter has taken place there. Therefore, the

aspect of initial demand has come under shadow of doubt.


15.         To sum up, here, there is doubt whether there was any

motive for putting up demand because admittedly, no criminal action is

shown to be initiated, leave aside filing of charge-sheet, on the threats of

which bribe was allegedly demanded. As pointed out, accused was

merely police constable and was thus not in a position to charge-sheet

accused. Therefore, the motive for demand itself is rendered doubtful.

There is no work of complainant with accused. I.O. in paragraph 12 of

the cross has admitted that, he was not aware whether any action was

taken on the complainant on the basis of alleged raid to the hotel of

complainant. I.O. rather admits complainant and customers were

released after due warning. Therefore, here, the motive to put up

                                PAGE 9 OF 10
                                                              APEAL-48-2015.odt




demand of bribe itself has not been substantiated. Though it is settled

position that, person may not actually be in a position to perform the

work for which bribe is allegedly demanded, would not itself be

sufficient to exonerate him. However, it is equally settled law that, proof

of demand is sine qua non to prove action under Section 7 and 13 of the

Act.

            Secondly, here, PW 2 shadow panch, who is looked upon as

crucial witness, in his cross has admitted that, he did not hear the

telephonic conversation between complainant and accused. There is

doubt about exact location where demand verification was drawn in

view of variance in testimony of complainant and shadow panch.

            Therefore, the story of prosecution is not completely free

from doubt, hence, impugned order cannot be said to be erroneous or

perverse. Hence, the following order is passed:

                                 ORDER

                   Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.



                                               (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh




                               PAGE 10 OF 10