THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA THR DY SUPDT OF POLICE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU JALNAversusSK AYUB MAHETABSAB

2026:BHC-AUG:44122


                                                                    CriAppeal-516-2011
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2011

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                 Anti Corruption Bureau,
                 Jalna, District Jalna.                          …. Appellant

                      Versus

                 Sk. Ayub s/o Mahetabsab,
                 Age 56 years, Occupation Service,
                 Police Inspector, Police Station,
                 Jafrabad, R/o. Ayodhya Housing Society,
                 Khadgaon Road, Latur,
                 Taluka and District Latur.                      … Respondent
                                                              (Original Accused)
                                                 …..
                          Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar, APP for the Appellant-State.
                       Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for the Respondent.
                                                 .....

                                        CORAM :         ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                        Reserved on         : 28.09.2026
                                        Pronounced on       : 29.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.   The State hereby questions the judgment and order of acquittal

                 dated 15.12.2010 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Jalna in

                 Special Case (PCA) No. 7 of 2009 acquitting present respondent from

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

                 Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
                                                      CriAppeal-516-2011
                                   -2-




2.    In nutshell, case of prosecution in trial court was that,

complainant, who was booked for chapter proceedings, had

approached accused, a police official, to desist him from arresting

complainant in above proceedings. According to prosecution, there

was demand of Rs.1000/- which on negotiations was brought down

to Rs.500/-. In stead of complying with demand of bribe, complainant

chose to approach ACB and lodged report. Thereafter, ACB authorities

planned trap, summoned panchas, introduced complainant to them,

panchas heard his story and agreed to act as pancha. Thereafter,

Investigating   Officer   gave   necessary   instructions   as   well   as

demonstration and after pre-trap panchanama, main trap was laid

and executed. Accused was apprehended and after complaint, he was

chargesheeted and tried vide above Special Case. The trial ended up

in acquittal and aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred instant

appeal.



3.    Learned APP would point out that, case of prosecution is rested

on as many as five witnesses. He was candid enough in pointing out

that during trial, as complainant expired, he was not available for

adducing evidence. However, according to learned APP, there was

credible evidence in the form of testimony of PW1 who was
                                                      CriAppeal-516-2011
                                  -3-

independent shadow pancha and was party to the demand as well as

acceptance. Learned APP pointed out that, learned trial court has

failed to consider and appreciate the testimony of PW1 in its correct

perspective. That, learned trial court on one hand has given

weightage to the substantive evidence of PW1, but has not considered

it to be corroborative piece of evidence. According to him, learned

trial court also erred in holding that, pre-trap panchanama was silent

on the point of demand when it was so reflected in the complaint

itself. On both counts, he finds fault on the part of trial court in

acquitting the accused and prays to interfere by allowing the appeal

by relying on the evidence of PW1 shadow pancha and PW5

Investigating Officer.



4.    In answer to above, learned counsel for the respondent/accused

would justify the order of acquittal to be just, legal and proper and in

consonance with the settled legal principles. According to him, very

demand is not proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and

so, mere recovery is of no significance.



5.    In the line of above submissions, evidence on record is put to

scrutiny. As pointed out, it does appear that very de facto

complainant’s evidence is not available as he died before adducing
                                                     CriAppeal-516-2011
                                  -4-

evidence. Therefore, the only evidence that remains for consideration

is that of PW1 shadow pancha and PW5 Investigating Officer.



6.    Evidence of PW1 shadow pancha at Exhibit 17 and in initial

part of his examination-in-chief, he deposed about attending ACB

office, being introduced to complainant, hearing his narrative about

accused demanding Rs.1000/- to not to arrest complainant in

proceedings under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. and that finally, bribe

amount was reduced to Rs.500/-. He identified complaint Exhibit 18

to be containing his signature. In paragraph 3 of his chief, he deposed

that the Investigating Officer asked deceased complainant to establish

contact with accused on mobile phone and to inform him that he is

coming to take bail. This witness also identified pre-trap panchanama

Exhibit 19 and in paragraph 4 he deposed about the events that took

place at the residence of accused. According to him, after conversion

between deceased complainant and accused, when they stood up to

go to Tahsil office for conducting proceedings of bail, at that time,

accused asked complainant whether he had brought the amount and

to give it, and accordingly complainant gave Rs.500/- which accused

accepted and kept below a pillow and thereafter complainant gave

signal after which raiding party came and apprehended accused and

further proceedings took place.
                                                     CriAppeal-516-2011
                                  -5-




      While under cross, he admitted that de facto complainant had

not disclosed to ACB authorities on which date and time accused had

raised demand of Rs.1000/-. He answered that, entire conversion

between complainant and them was reduced in pre-trap panchanama.

However, he is unable to state why pre-trap panchanama was silent

about complainant revealing that accused had demanded bribe of

Rs.1000/-, but he was not ready to give so much amount and was

only ready to give Rs.500/-. In paragraph 6 of his cross, he admitted

that he did not hear the conversion from the tape recorder. He

admitted that when complainant told accused that he wants to give

surety, at that time, accused asked him to “give it”. He is unable to

state why post-trap panchanama Exhibit 20 is silent about accused

asking complainant whether amount was brought by him.



7.    Thus, from the above discussed testimony it is emerging that,

this witness has admitted that deceased de facto complainant had not

stated exactly when initial demand was raised. He has also admitted

in cross that initially accused asked Rs.1000/-, but after negotiations

amount was brought down by complainant to Rs.500/- and pre-trap

panchanama to be absolutely silent on this point.
                                                     CriAppeal-516-2011
                                  -6-

8.    Exhibit 20 seems to be the post-trap panchanama i.e. spot

panchanama. However, as pointed out, it is silent about accused

asking complainant whether he brought the amount. Consequently,

whatever PW1 has deposed is apparently an improvement. Further,

whatever accused had allegedly said regarding “give it”, cannot be co-

related that bribe amount was meant, as there is contemporary case

about complainant saying that he has brought surety and therefore, it

is possible that what accused meant was to give the said surety at

Tahsil office.



9.    Consequently, here, when the demand itself has come under

shadow of doubt, entire of prosecution collapses. When very

foundational facts are not demonstrated or substantiated, it is not

open for prosecution to put into play Section 20 of PC Act which

permits drawing of presumption.



10.   Further, it appears that currency was not recovered from the

person of accused and it was rather recovered from beneath the

pillow on a cot. The pancha no.2 Manikrao, at whose instance

recovery of tainted currency was caused, is surprisingly not examined

by prosecution. Even otherwise, mere recovery of tainted currency is

of no significance unless demand itself is cogently and clearly proved.
                                                      CriAppeal-516-2011
                                  -7-




11.   Resultantly for above reasons, there are major short falls and

lacuna on the part of prosecution, apart from deceased de facto

complainant himself having doubtful integrity and having criminal

antecedents and therefore, possibility of false implication cannot be

completely ruled out.



      For above reasons, case of prosecution cannot be said to be

proved beyond reasonable doubt.



12.   Perused the judgment under challenge. Learned trial court has

considered each and every aspect and thereafter, has refused to

accept the case of prosecution as proved. The view taken by learned

trial court being the possible view, no interference is called for.

Hence, the following order :

                                   ORDER

                  The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.




                                         [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre