THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSHIVAJI PANDU MAHAJAN

2026:BHC-AUG:37776


                                                                       CriAppeal-489-2014



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2014
                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through Police Station Officer,
                 Zilla Peth Station, Jalgaon.                      ... Appellant
                                                             [Orig. Complainant]
                       Versus

                 Shivaji Pandu Mahajan,
                 Age 56 years,
                 R/o. Plot No. 34, Bijli Nagar,
                 Deopour, Dhule.                                  ... Respondent
                                                                  [Orig. Accused]
                                                  ..…
                 Mrs. A. S. Mantri, APP for the Appellant-State.
                 Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for the Respondent.
                                                  …..

                                           CORAM :       ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                           Reserved on       : 20.08.2026
                                           Pronounced on     : 21.08.2026
                 JUDGMENT :

                 1.    State hereby assails the judgment and order dated 15.12.2012

                 passed by learned Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions

                 Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No. 07 of 2011, thereby acquitting the

                 accused from charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

                 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

                                   CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF

                 2.    In Nutshell, prosecution was launched against the present

                 respondent on accusations that he, while working as clerk in the

                                                   [1]
                                                        CriAppeal-489-2014



office of Deputy R.T.O., Jalgaon, demanded bribe of Rs.600/- for

issuing driving licenses to 25 candidates as well as certifying character

certificates of two candidates. Complainant, who was Manager in a

Motor Driving School, as was not willing to pay bribe, he approached

ACB and gave complaint on 01.09.2010 based on which, PW4

Investigating Officer (IO) arranged trap by engaging shadow pancha,

giving necessary instructions to complainant and shadow pancha,

drawing pre-trap panchanama and sending complainant and shadow

pancha with tainted currency. The trap was executed after which

accused came to be apprehended and complaint was lodged against

him, which was duly investigated and accused was chargesheeted and

finally tried by learned Ad hoc District Judge-1 and Additional

Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. At trial prosecution adduced evidence of four

witnesses and rested its case on documentary evidence like complaint

and various panchanamas.



      Defence of accused is of false implication. Stand has been taken

in trial court by accused that he accepted the bribe under genuine

belief that the amount was returned by the owner of the Driving

School who had requested him to time-being pay the charges for

licenses and certificates. In support of such defence, accused has

                                   [2]
                                                        CriAppeal-489-2014



adduced evidence of DW1, who is the owner of the said Motor

Driving School where complainant was serving as Manager.



      After appreciating the evidence adduced by each of the parties,

learned trial court recorded a finding that, prosecution failed to prove

the charges and moreover, accused succeeded in probabilizing his

defence. Hence, appeal by the State.


                            SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the Appellant-State :

3.    According to Learned APP, prosecution has proved the charges

beyond reasonable doubt. By placing written notes of arguments it is

submitted that, prosecution has established that accused was a public

servant. That, accused raised demand of bribe for performing official

duty and therefore, complaint was received and entertained. She

pointed out that, complainant has categorically deposed that accused

raised demand of Rs.600/-, i.e. Rs.20/- each for issuing 25 driving

licenses and Rs.50/- each for certifying two character certificates, and

as such, total sum of Rs.600/- was demanded. She pointed out that,

complainant approached ACB and lodged complaint, after which ACB

authorities planned trap. She pointed out that, independent pancha


                                     [3]
                                                     CriAppeal-489-2014



witness PW3 was engaged and introduced to complainant, who heard

the story of complainant about demand and he agreed to act as

pancha and therefore, PW4 IO gave necessary instructions to both

these witnesses. That, currency obtained from complainant was used

to pay bribe after application of anthracene powder and its

demonstration was given to both the witnesses. That, IO has drawn

pore trap panchanama. That, during verification there was demand in

presence of shadow pancha. Both, complainant and shadow pancha

have testified to that extent. Thus, according to her, demand was

proved and evidence of both the witnesses has remained intact.



4.       She next submitted that, PW2 complainant and PW3 shadow

pancha together visited the R.T.O. office and approached accused,

who was occupying seat at window no. 27. That, second time also

there was demand and it was complied and pre-determined signal

was relayed after which, accused was apprehended red handed. That,

both, PW2 and PW3, are lending support to each other on above

count.



5.       Thus, it is her submission that, prosecution has cogently

established that there was demand and acceptance, but according to

                                 [4]
                                                       CriAppeal-489-2014



her, merely on the basis of got up witness DW1, defence has been

accepted and accused has been acquitted. She pointed out that, DW1

always had work with R.T.O. authorities and therefore he supported

accused. According to her, DW1 was thus an interested witness and

therefore, trial court ought not to have relied on his testimony to

acquit accused in spite of availability of cogent and reliable evidence

on the point of demand and acceptance, and moreover when there

was valid sanction. For all above reasons, she urges to set aside the

impugned judgment and allow the appeal.



On behalf of the Respondent-Accused :

6.    Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-accused justified

the order of acquittal by submitting that, accused has admitted

acceptance of money, but it was the same money which accused had

paid on behalf of DW1 and on his request. That, there is documentary

evidence in the form of chit received from DW1. The amount accepted

was towards said transaction and therefore, amount was accepted

under genuine belief, however, complainant, who was annoyed and

upset, lodged false complaint. Learned counsel took this Court

through the evidence of DW1 as well as PW2 and PW3. He would

submit that, accused has probabilized the defence and therefore,

                                  [5]
                                                          CriAppeal-489-2014



learned trial court has rightly accepted the same. For above reasons

and for want of merits, he prays to dismiss the appeal.



                EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

7.    In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of

PW1 sanctioning authority, PW2 complainant, PW3 shadow pancha

and PW4 Investigating Officer, whereas DW1 is the defence witness

who is owner of the Driving School, namely, Kalane Motor Driving

School at Chalisgaon.



      Re-appreciated and reanalyzed the testimonies of above

witnesses.



8.    PW2 Sham Jadhav is the complainant and he is examined at

Exhibit 11. Substance of his testimony is that, he works as a Manager

in Kalane Motor Driving School. That, in the month of August, he was

given work to get permanent driving licenses of 25 persons those who

took training in the driving school, and accordingly he tendered the

documents with the office of Deputy R.T.O. Jalgaon. According to

him, in above connection, when he approached accused, accused

allegedly told him that Rs.20/- for each of the 25 driving licenses, (i.e.

                                   [6]
                                                       CriAppeal-489-2014



total Rs. 500/-) and Rs.50/- each for character certificates of two

candidates (i.e. total Rs.100/-), and thus total of Rs.600/- would be

required to be paid and therefore, he lodged complaint with ACB

authorities on 01.09.2010. In further chief, he narrated about

independent pancha being called, introduced to him, he handing over

currency notes to the IO, regarding procedure of application of

anthracene powder to it and necessary instructions being given to him

and shadow pancha. On the point of demand verification, he has

deposed in para 6 about approaching accused at window no. 27 with

shadow pancha PW3 and accused rising demand and he assuring to

pay and time was sought to collect the amount, and thereafter the

events were narrated to the IO about confirmation of demand.

Regarding main trap, he deposed in para 7 about accused again

making demand, he giving Rs.600/-, accused accepting it and pre-

determined signal being relayed.



      The relevant cross is only dealt herewith. This witness has

admitted that, for the first time he had been to the R.T.O. in

connection with the said work. He admitted that, application is

required to be moved for getting license, but he is unable to tell when

such applications were moved. He is also unable to tell as to when the

                                   [7]
                                                     CriAppeal-489-2014



fees of the candidates were deposited. He answered that, he informed

owner about demand of Rs.600/-. He also admitted that bribe amount

was given to him by his owner. When his attention was invited to a

document dated 09.08.2010, he admitted it to be on the letter head of

the Driving School and it to be in the handwriting of son of the

owner, upon which said document was marked as D1. He also

admitted that the said letter was addressed to accused. In further

cross, he denied lodging complaint against accused previously. He

answered that, on the day of trap he himself did not see 25 driving

licenses. He admitted that with the accused at window no. 27, a boy

named Suraj was present near the accused. He also admitted that

when he met accused for the first time and handed over list of 25

licenses to accused, the same were handed over to said Suraj. Rest is

all denial.



9.    PW3 shadow pancha, who is examined at Exhibit 15, has

deposed in para 4 about he accompanying complaint to the office of

accused, going to window no.27 and there, conversation taking place

between complainant and accused about character verification report

of 2 candidates and licenses of 25 candidates, and accused asking

complainant whether he brought money and complainant told that he

                                 [8]
                                                     CriAppeal-489-2014



would get it within 15 minutes, this witness and complainant then

going and informing the IO. In para 7, he deposed about the events of

main trap and about accused once more asking complainant whether

he brought the amount and complainant taking out tainted currency

and passing it on to accused who accepted it. Then, he narrated about

the further procedure on arrival of raiding party.


      Nothing adverse has been brought in his cross except his

admission that, at the time when they went to the window of accused,

one Suraj was sitting there. Rest is all denial.


10.   As pointed out, very bold defence of accused is that, he had

accepted taking the amount from complainant, however the

explanation which he offered is that, due to acquaintance of DW1,

who is very owner of the Driving School, on his behalf accused agreed

to pay Rs.600/- towards the charges of preparation of licenses. That,

complainant being employ of DW1, he presumed that the amount

paid that day to the tune of Rs.600/- was towards said already paid

amount, and so it was accepted under said genuine belief. In support

of such defence, accused, apart from giving his written statement at

paper book page no. 253, has also adduced evidence of DW1, which is

at Exhibit 34.

                                    [9]
                                                      CriAppeal-489-2014



11.   This defence witness Bhimrao Kalane deposed that he runs

motor driving school at Chalisgaon by name Kalane Motor Driving

School. He knows Sham Jadhav i.e. PW2, who works as a Manager in

his Driving School. Attention of this Witness was drawn to the

document Exhibit D1 which was on the letter head of the Driving

School and he admitted it to be under his signature and addressed to

the accused. He deposed that, he had sent letter to accused with

Sham Jadhav, i.e. PW2, and vide said letter, he had requested accused

to pay license fees of two of their candidates. The fees of driving

license has to be calculated as per Government Rules. He deposed

that, vide above letter he had requested accused to deposit the fees

for time being and that he would send the amount later on. He

specifically deposed that he had requested accused to deposit the fees

as the said two candidates were in need of license urgently. He claims

that, accused informed about the fees of Rs.350/- and Rs.250/-

respectively, through complainant and he claims to have received

message accordingly, but complainant did not tell him that he was

going to lodge complaint against the accused.



      Above witness is subjected to cross, wherein he admitted that

he did not carry document to demonstrate his ownership of Driving

                                 [10]
                                                       CriAppeal-489-2014



School. He admitted that license cannot be prepared before

depositing the required fee and unless license is prepared, it cannot

be numbered. He admitted that the licenses of the candidates, who

take training at their Driving School, are got prepared by them

through the R.T.O. On being confronted with the document D1, he

admitted that complete address of the candidates is not provided

therein, nor it is stated that the two candidates were taking training

in his school. He also admitted that there is no reference in the

document that Rs.350/- is in respect of one candidate and Rs.250/- is

in respect of another candidate. He also admitted that there is no

outward number mentioned over the said letter.


12.   Pointing to the above testimony, learned APP would submit

that, the above witness was not worthy of credence. That, moreover,

document D1 is carrying date which are interpolated and it bears no

outward number.


13.   Thus, as stated above, specific defence of accused is that, as he

knew DW1, at his request and on his behalf he paid Rs.600/- towards

the license of two candidates and under the belief that said amount

was being returned, he accepted the currency handed over by PW2.




                                 [11]
                                                         CriAppeal-489-2014



14.    Resultantly, here is the defence witness on behalf of accused in

support of above stand. It is fairly settled position that, burden on

accused to be discharged is not as heavy as it is on prosecution.

Accused is merely expected to probabilize the defence. Here, evidence

of the very owner and employer of complainant has been adduced as

a defence witness, who stepped into the witness box and deposed

that, at his instance accused paid the charges and the money sent

through complainant was accepted. There is document in the form of

D1 which even complainant has categorically admitted.


15.    The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Babu

Ram (2000) 4 SCC 515, has observed as under :


      “23. Depositions of witnesses, whether they are examined
      on the prosecution side or defence side or as court
      witnesses, are oral evidence in the case and hence the
      scrutiny thereof shall be without any predilection or bias.
      No witness is entitled to get better treatment merely
      because he was examined as a prosecution witness or even
      as a court witness. It is judicial scrutiny which is warranted
      in respect of the depositions of all witnesses for which
      different yardsticks cannot be prescribed as for those
      different categories of witnesses.”




                                   [12]
                                                         CriAppeal-489-2014



16.    Likewise, in Munshi Prasad and others v. State of Bihar (2002)

1 SCC 351, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that ;


      “…… The defence witnesses are entitled to equal respect
      and treatment as that of the prosecution. The issue of
      credibility and trustworthiness ought also to be attributed
      to the defence witnesses on a par with that of the
      prosecution. A lapse on the part of the defence witnesses
      cannot be differentiated and be treated differently than that
      of the prosecutor’s witnesses”.



17.    In the light of above settled position, as submitted, accused has

succeeded in probabilizing his defence which is in consonance with

his written statement. There is no reason to doubt it. The very

signatory to the document even has stepped into the witness box to

verify and depose and therefore, his testimony indeed deserves

consideration and cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground as

put forth by the State that, said witness is interested witness.



18.    Perused the judgment. Learned trial court seems to have

appreciated the respective cases put forth by each of the parties. No

error is committed by trial court in giving due weightage to the stand

taken by the defence. The trial court rightly held that it deserves


                                   [13]
                                                       CriAppeal-489-2014



consideration. Having probabilized the defence, trial court has

accepted the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no

illegality of perversity in accepting the version of defence witness to

acquit the accused. There being no merits in the appeal, following

order is passed :

                               ORDER

                       The appeal is dismissed.



                                  [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre




                                 [14]