THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusBALU NIVRUTTI NAWALI

2026:BHC-AUG:41329


                                                                     CriAppeal-531-2014
                                                    -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.531 OF 2014
                                               WITH
                                CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.202 OF 2022

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

                       Versus

                 Balu Nivrutti Nawali,
                 Age: 48 years, ASI Rahuri
                 Police Station, Tq. Rahuri,
                 R/o Guldagad Estate, behind
                 Tahsil Office, Rahuri,
                 Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar                           .. Respondent

                                                   …
                 Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar, APP for appellant/State.
                 Mr. N. L. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent.
                                                   ...

                                                CORAM :     ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                                Reserved on : 07.09.2026
                                                Pronounced on : 08.09.2026

                 JUDGMENT :-

                 1.    State hereby takes exception to the judgment and order of

                 acquittal dated 28.02.2013 passed by learned Special Judge,

                 Ahmednagar in Special Case (ACB) No.3 of 2010 acquitting

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

                 Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
                                                     CriAppeal-531-2014
                                  -2-


             BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE

2.    In short, prosecution case in Trial Court was that on

02.07.2009, one Bharat Vairagar, who was proceeding on motorcycle,

accidentally fell and suffered injuries. His relatives demanded

compensation or else threatened to lodge complaint. At that time

accused/respondent, who was a police official, demanded Rs.2,000/-

for hushing up the criminal case of causing accident and, therefore,

complaint to that extent was lodged with ACB authorities, who

arranged a trap by engaging a panch witness. Complainant and

shadow panch approached accused and on demand, tainted currency

was paid, which was accepted and, thereafter, predetermined signal

was relayed, resulting into apprehension of accused. On complaint by

ACB Officer, crime was registered, investigated and accused was tried.

Trial was conducted, but it ended up in acquittal. Hence, the appeal.


                           SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant/State :-

3.    Pointing to the evidence on record, learned APP would submit

that the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt

by examining the complainant and the shadow panch. The

sanctioning authority was also examined, and the learned Trial Court

recorded a finding that the sanction was valid and was accorded upon
                                                       CriAppeal-531-2014
                                  -3-

due application of mind. However, according to learned APP, on the

point of demand, though the complainant had not supported the

prosecution case, his entire evidence ought not to have been

discarded. There was also evidence of shadow panch. The evidence of

the Investigating Officer was also not accepted, and the prosecution

evidence was held to be insufficient to prove the prosecution case

beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prayers are raised for complete re-

appreciation of evidence and to allow the appeal.


On behalf of respondent/accused :-

4.    Learned Counsel for respondent/accused would justify the

judgment and order of acquittal and also took this Court through the

testimony of complainant, shadow panch and the cross-examination

faced by them.    He pointed out that complainant himself has not

supported prosecution and, therefore, according to him, Trial Court

has committed no error whatsoever in refusing the case of the

prosecution.

      EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND ANALYSIS

5.    Re-appreciated    the   entire     evidence.   Evidence   of   PW1

complainant is at Exhibit-15 and that of PW3 shadow panch is at

Exhibit-27. PW2 seems to be the sanctioning authority and PW4

seems to be the Investigating Officer.
                                                      CriAppeal-531-2014
                                  -4-

6.    The prosecution case before the Trial Court was that the

complainant was having two cows and two she-buffaloes. On

02.07.2009, one cow suddenly left the complainant's field and came

onto the Wambhori Road. One Bharat Vairagar, who was proceeding

on his two-wheeler, on seeing the livestock on the road, lost control

over his vehicle and sustained a head injury. The complainant shifted

the injured Bharat to the hospital, however, he succumbed to the

injuries. The relatives of Bharat, as well as some villagers, approached

the complainant and demanded compensation and threatened to

lodge a complaint with the police. Meanwhile, compromise seems to

have reached between the complainant and wife of Bharat and he

duly paid Rs.30,000/- and compromise was drawn on stamp paper.

However, according to the complainant, the accused, who was serving

as an Assistant Sub-Inspector at Rauri Police Station, demanded an

amount of Rs.2,000/- for hushing up the matter. Complainant as was

not willing, he approached ACB, resulting into action by ACB.


7.    The specific defence of the accused before the Trial Court was

that the amount of Rs.2,000/- was not demanded by way of a bribe,

but was to be paid to the relatives of deceased Bharat.


8.    As pointed out, the complainant himself, who is examined at

Exhibit-15, has not supported the prosecution case, but, nothing
                                                     CriAppeal-531-2014
                                  -5-

fruitful has been elicited from him in his cross-examination by the

learned APP. In paragraph No.9 of his cross-examination, this witness

has admitted that, even after paying Rs.30,000/-, the villagers were

demanding amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the expenses of the Maruti

Omni Van which was used to shift the injured to the hospital. Further,

in paragraph No.10 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that,

the accused in his explanation had stated that the amount of

Rs.2,000/- was to be paid to the relatives of the deceased and the said

amount was handed over to the accused for being paid to them.


9.    Though shadow panch PW3 narrated events that took place

since his visit to ACB office, meeting complainant, listening to his

story and signing complaint and pre-trap panchanama, in paragraph

No.4 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that no talk took place

between complainant and accused in his presence in what context the

amount was handed over to the accused.


10.   Therefore, accused has probabilized the defence. Moreover, as

stated above, when complainant himself has admitted that the

amount given to the accused was meant to be passed on to the

relatives of deceased Bharat, the aspect of demand of bribe comes

under shadow of doubt. Consequently, when the complainant has not

supported the prosecution case on the point of demand of bribe as
                                                     CriAppeal-531-2014
                                    -6-

well as acceptance, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the

same beyond reasonable doubt.


                             CONCLUSION


11.   Perused the judgment under challenge. The learned Trial Court

has correctly appreciated the available evidence. Case of prosecution

as well as defence has been taken into account and findings are

recorded by assigning sound reasons. No good ground being made

out on merits to interfere, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence,

the following order is passed :-


                                   ORDER


      I.    The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.


      II.   In view of dismissal of Criminal Appeal, Criminal

      Application No.202 of 2022 also stands disposed of.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



scm