THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusRAMDAS SAMBHAJI NITNAWARE

2026:BHC-AUG:38639


                                                                     CriAppeal-502-2005
                                                    -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.502 OF 2005

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Police Station,
                 City Chowk, Aurangabad.                          .. Appellant
                       Versus
                 Ramdas Sambhaji Nitnaware
                 Age: 42 years, Occu.: Service,
                 R/o. Sale Galli, Veer Hanuman
                 Road, Latur, Dist. Latur.                        .. Respondent

                                               …
                 Mr.G.O. Wattamwar, APP for Appellant/State.
                 Mr.Suraj N. Pradhan, a/w Ms. Dnyaneshwari R. Jadhavar i/b
                 Mr. Hemantkumar F. Pawar, Advocate for respondent.
                                               …

                                                  CORAM :   ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                  Reserved on   : 24-08-2026
                                                  Pronounced on : 25-08-2026

                 JUDGMENT :-

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

                 and order dated 16-04-2005, passed by the learned Special Judge,

                 Aurangabad, in Special Case No.17 of 2001, thereby acquitting the

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

                 Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).


                                         FACTS IN NUTSHELL
                 2.    In short, prosecution was launched against present respondent
                                                      CriAppeal-502-2005
                                 -2-

(accused) on the premise that, he, in the capacity of Senior Clerk in

the Office of the District Sports Officer, Aurangabad, demanded bribe

of Rs.500/- for handing over a demand draft received in the name of

complainant’s Society.   However, as complainant was having only

Rs.100/- he requested accused to give demand draft and he will

arrange and pay the remaining Rs.400/- afterwords, upon which

accused handed over the demand draft, but told complainant that the

remaining amount of Rs.400/- has to be paid within working hours

else he would stop the payment of said demand draft.                 As

complainant was not willing to comply, he approached Anti

Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities and lodged complaint, which

was followed by arrangement of shadow panchas by ACB authorities

and giving demonstration of necessary procedures and issuing

necessary instructions to complainant and shadow pancha.          After

drawing pre-trap panchanama, trap was laid in the office of accused,

where complainant and shadow pancha made to accompany together

to give bribe amount on demand and to relay predetermined signal

after acceptance. Accordingly, on 20-04-2001, PW1 complainant and

PW2 shadow pancha approached accused and balance amount of

Rs.400/- was paid on demand, and thereafter, predetermined signal

was relayed resulting into apprehension of accused.

      PW3 Investigating Officer, who carried out investigation and
                                                     CriAppeal-502-2005
                                   -3-

planned trap, filed chargesheet against accused and after obtaining

sanction from PW4 Sanctioning Authority, accused was made to face

trial, which ultimately ended up in acquittal. Hence, appeal by State.


                                 SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellant State :

3.    Learned APP would apprise the Court and reiterated the case of

prosecution in trial Court.       He pointed out that, accused is

undisputedly a public servant. That, for handing over a demand draft

in favour of complainant’s society, there was demand of bribe of

Rs.500/-. That, complainant had made afront payment of Rs.100/-

and before remaining amount was handed over, ACB was approached

vide complaint exh.19. That, ACB authorities had engaged pancha

witnesses and a trap was planned and it was successful.


4.    He next submitted that there was demand as well as acceptance

by the accused. That, shadow pancha, who was in the company of

complainant, had supported complainant’s version, but according to

him, same is unfortunately not considered and appreciated by the

learned trial court. That, there is incorrect appreciation of evidence

on record resulting into perverse and unsustainable judgment.

Consequently, he prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the
                                                    CriAppeal-502-2005
                                  -4-

impugned judgment.


On behalf of Respondent Accused :

5.    Per contra, while defending the judgment and order of

acquittal, learned counsel for respondent would point out that,

complainant’s evidence is unworthy of credence. That, complainant is

giving different stories at different times, and that, moreover, there

was no corroboration to testimony of complainant. That, from the

testimony of complainant, it was evident that he alone went into

room of accused while shadow pahcha stayed out of room and

therefore, independent witness was unaware of the events that took

place in the room.



6.    He further pointed out that, there was no motive to put up

demand of gratification as admittedly complainant has received

demand draft prior to the main trap and therefore, as there was no

work pending so as to demand bribe, he justifies the findings and

conclusion reached at by the learned trial court.



BRIEF ACCOUNT OF EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION IN TRIAL COURT

7.    Re-appreciated the entire evidence. Prosecution has rested its

case on the testimony of four witnesses i.e. PW1 Madhukar Sakharam
                                                     CriAppeal-502-2005
                                  -5-

Gavali, complainant (exh.18), PW2 Kailash Jadhav, shadow pancha

(exh.26), PW3 Bhanudas Sonawane, Investigating Officer (exh.34),

and PW4 Ganesh Pundlikrao Thakur, Sanctioning Authority (exh.38).


8.    Here, there is no challenge or dispute that accused was working

as Senior Clerk in the Office of District Sports Officer. There is also

no dispute that complainant is President of a registered Society and

was due to receive grant from Government to the tune of Rs.2,500/.

      Here, accusations of prosecution are that, accused demanded

Rs.500/- to handover the demand draft and received Rs.100/- as part

consideration and remaining Rs.400/- was to be paid at a later point

of time. Meanwhile, complainant approached ACB and lodged

complaint exh.19 alleging demand of bribe.


9.    As usual in the light of charge, evidence of PW1 complainant

and PW2 shadow pancha is of significance and therefore, same is put

to scrutiny.

      PW1 Madhukar Sakharam Gavali, complainant is examined at

exh.18 and its substance is that, he is president of Akar Sanskrutik

Gramin Vikas Sanstha and receives grant of Maharashtra State Sports

Authority. That, the State Government had sanctioned Rs.2,500/- for

the year 2000-2001 through District Sports Authority and so he had
                                                     CriAppeal-502-2005
                                  -6-

been to the said office on 12-04-2001 to collect the demand draft and

claims to have approached accused, who was an Accountant but

according to him, for issuing cheque/demand draft, there was

demand of Rs.500/- and complainant claims that as he had no

money, he told him that, he would give him after 2-3 days and he left.

      On 20-04-2001, he again claims to have met accused, who

again put up demand of Rs.500/-, but complainant told that he does

not have such amount and he has only Rs.100/-. He stated that he

collected the demand draft and while he was passing, he claims that

one person asked him that as he had to give Rs.100/-, give it to him

and he accordingly, paid Rs.100/- to accused and assured to give

Rs.400/- within working hours. Then he claims that, as he was not

willing to pay, he decided to approach ACB where he gave complaint

and also handed over the demand draft. He deposed that, accused

had told him to pay Rs.100/- to that person and he thought that said

person was Peon and he paid Rs.100/- to said peon for accused. Then

in paragraph 3, he narrated all steps/procedures taken by ACB

officers for planning and laying trap and drawing pre-trap

panchanama. In paragraph 4 of his examination-in-chief, he stated

that, as per instructions, he and pancha Jahdav walked to the office of

accused and found accused sitting in one room. He claims that, he sat

opposite to accused when pancha Jadhav stayed outside the room.
                                                    CriAppeal-502-2005
                                 -7-

He took out tainted currency and held before accused, who collected

those notes and kept above the drawer and below the top of table and

he came out and gave predetermined signal.

      Surprisingly in further examination-in-chief, he stated that, he

does not remember what had happened as accused was apprehended,

but he denied shadow pancha sitting by his side and also denied

asking accused about his work or accused telling him to give balance

amount as work was already done. He deposed that, he paid the

notes on his own accord.

      In paragraph 6, he denied paying Rs.100/- to accused on

20-04-2001 and admitted that, there were no talks between him and

accused. But again in paragraph 7, he stated that on 20-04-2001, he

had paid Rs.100/- to the accused and on that day, pancha was sitting

by his side and he asking accused about his work who allegedly told

him that he already done the work and demanded Rs.400/- which

was handed over.

      While   under   cross-examination,    he   admitted   that,   on

20-04-2001, he had received demand draft of Rs.2,500/-.             He

admitted that, while visiting ACB office, he carried demand draft. He

also admitted that, he received demand draft and therefore, no work

was pending with accused.      He answered that, he kept tainted

currency in the hand of accused after reaching there.        He also
                                                     CriAppeal-502-2005
                                  -8-

admitted that, after arrival of pancha, who was at the door, he got

frightened and kept the currency in the space on the table. Rest is

denial.



10.   PW2 Kailash Jadhav, shadow pancha, who is looked upon as an

independent witness, is also examined at exh.26 and he deposed

about visiting ACB office, getting introduced to complainant, listening

to his grievance, signing the complaint exh.19 and demonstration of

application of anthracene powder being given by ACB authorities and

pre-trap panchanama exh.27 being drawn. In paragraph 3, he

deposed that, he accompanied complainant to the office of accused

and there, complainant asking accused what happened about his

work and accused telling him that, his work was done and to give

balance amount, and accordingly complainant took out tainted

currency and held it before accused, who collected the currency and

kept in the gap between the drawer and top of the table and

complainant leaving the office to transmit signal.

      While under cross-examination, he admitted that, he did not

know when complainant had received demand draft and also he did

not check what was complainant’s work with accused, but he stated

about some work pertaining to demand draft. Rest is all denial.
                                                     CriAppeal-502-2005
                                  -9-

                              ANALYSIS

11.   Thus, here, complainant as pointed out, is sometimes

supporting prosecution and at one point of time, denying demand

being made, part payment being made, shadow pancha to be in his

company. He appears to be thus a flip-flop witness, who is unworthy

of credence. Moreover, he has admitted in examination-in-chief as

well as in cross-examination that he has already received demand

draft on 20-04-2001 i.e. prior to the main trap. Therefore, apparently,

no work was pending on the date of main trap.

      PW2 shadow pancha does not seem to be aware of exact nature

of complaint of PW1 complainant. He also admitted that, he cannot

state what was the work of complainant with accused.

      Consequently, when very prosecution’s case was that accused

has already received a demand draft of Rs.2,500/- and he had handed

it over to the Investigating Officer at the time of giving complaint

exh.19, apparently, on 20-04-2001, there was no work pending with

accused.   Complainant himself has admitted that, he has received

demand draft.     As Demand Draft was already handed over to

complainant, the very motive to put up demand assumes importance.

Though complainant claimed that, he paid Rs.100/- in advance i.e.

towards part amount, there is no distinct evidence to that extent.

Resultantly, motive to raise demand itself having come under shadow
                                                    CriAppeal-502-2005
                                 -10-

of doubt, case of prosecution does not stand.



12.   Moreover, here, complainant himself has admitted that, he

alone approached the accused in his room and prior to any demand,

he gave currency to accused. Therefore, there being mere acceptance,

in absence of any demand, the story of prosecution comes under

shadow of doubt.

      Law is fairly settled that mere recovery in absence of any

demand has no significance.        In the recent case of State of

Lokayuktha Police, Devanagere v. C.B.Nagaraj, MANU/SC/0746/

2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 25 that,

“Law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain

beginning from demand, acceptance and recovery has to be

completed. When the initial demand itself is suspicious, even if the

two other components of payment and recovery can be held to have

been proved, the chain would not be complete.”

      In the cases of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of

Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 10 SCC 152; Mukhtiar Singh

(since deceased) through his Legal Representatives v. State of Punjab,

(2017) 8 SCC, 136, K.Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, (2022) 4

SCC 574, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, if demand of bribe is

not proved then acceptance/recovery of bribe amount from
                                                        CriAppeal-502-2005
                                  -11-

possession of accused is of no relevance.



13.   Learned trial court, in the considered opinion of this court, has

rightly disbelieved prosecution story and for above reasons,

committed no error in not relying on the testimony of complainant.

Hence, there being no merits, appeal fails.      Accordingly, following

order is passed :

                                ORDER
                    Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.




                                            [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
SPT