THE STATE OF MAHversusSUNIL MADHUKAR PANDHARE

2026:BHC-AUG:16534


                                                                       CriAppeal-539-2012
                                                     -1-


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 539 OF 2012

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

                       Versus

                 Sunil Madhukar Pandhare
                 Age 40 years, Occupation Service,
                 R/o Jalgaon. 10-B, Shinu Bungalow,
                 Near SMIT College,
                 Bhikamchand Jain Nagar,
                 Jalgaon.                                            ... Respondent
                                                                 [Original Accused]
                                                  .....
                 Mr. B. B. Bhise, APP for the Appellant-State.
                 Mr. Ashish Sonawane a/w Ms. Sandhya Kawade h/f Mr. V. D.
                 Sonawane, Advocate for the Respondent.
                                                  .....

                                         CORAM :           ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                         Reserved on           : 16.04.2026
                                         Pronounced on         : 18.04.2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.    State hereby challenges judgment and order dated 21.01.2012

                 passed in Special Case No. 2 of 2009 acquitting present respondent

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

                 of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
                                                     CriAppeal-539-2012
                                 -2-




2.    In short, prosecution was launched against present respondent

on the complaint received from PW2 Mhansing that, on account of

dispute   with   neighbouring   land   owner,   an    application   for

measurement was moved with T.I.L.R. According to complainant, for

issuing copy of map and to retain 2/3 rd of the land, an amount of

Rs.5000/- was demanded by accused respondent. That, after

negotiations, the figure was brought down to Rs.2000/- and initially

Rs.500/- were paid upfront. As complainant was not willing to pay

bribe, he approached ACB office and gave complaint Exhibit 23 on the

basis of which PW4 Investigating Officer planned and executed the

trap. Accused was apprehended, chargesheeted and tried vide above

Special Case which ended up in acquittal. Hence, there is challenge to

the same by the State.



3.    Learned APP would submit that here, accused was in service of

T.I.L.R. and that is not in dispute. He would further submit that

accused had accompanied Cadastral Surveyor for carrying out

measurement of the land of complainant PW2 on his application and

there, demand was raised for bribe with assurance to retain 2/3 rd of

the land from the adjoining owner. That, prompt complaint was

received and therefore, ACB authorities planned trap. He submitted
                                                   CriAppeal-539-2012
                                  -3-

that there was both, demand as well as acceptance. That, testimony of

complainant found support from testimony of independent witness

like shadow pancha PW3. They both are consistent and lending

support to each other on the point of both, demand as well as

acceptance and thus, according to him, essentials for attracting the

charges were very much available in the prosecution case. He pointed

out that, admittedly there were some minor variances and

contradictions but the same were not material. He pointed out that,

even otherwise, FIR is not an encyclopedia and therefore what was

deposed by witnesses in the testimony was worthy of credence and

ought to have been accepted. He submitted that, even sanction was

proved to be on due application of mind, but according to him, there

is failure to consider and appreciate such evidence and therefore he

prays to interfere by allowing the appeal.



4.    Learned counsel for the respondent accused, while justifying

the order of acquittal, would submit that neither demand nor

acceptance is proved. According to him, at the outset, there was no

work with the accused and rather, entire work was with one Ragade.

It is allegation that accused demanded money while in the company

of said Ragade. However he questions, what could be the demand for,

when there was no official work assigned to the accused?, and
                                                     CriAppeal-539-2012
                                  -4-

thereby submits that, there is therefore no question of raising

demand. He pointed out that, similarly there was no locus to the

complainant to file application, nor he had filed any application for

carrying out measurement and said application was at the instance of

another person but said person is not examined. He further pointed

out that, even when it was the case of prosecution that present

accused, while in the company of one Ragade, a Cadastral Surveyor ,

had demanded bribe, said Ragade is not examined by prosecution for

the best reasons known to it. He also pointed out to the contradictions

and variances in the testimony of PW2 and PW3 and would submit

that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges and

thereby, according to him, learned trial court committed no error

whatsoever in refusing to accept the case of prosecution. For such

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



5.     Case of prosecution is rested on the evidence of in all four

witnesses i.e. PW1 sanctioning authority, PW2 complainant, PW3

shadow pancha and PW4 Investigating Officer. Defence has also

adduced evidence of one Ramesh (DW1) at Exhibit 36, who claims to

have witnessed the conversation between complainant and accused at

the tea stall.
                                                      CriAppeal-539-2012
                                  -5-




6.    Re-appreciated the evidence. In view of nature of charge, it is to

be first ascertained whether there was demand followed by

acceptance. Law is fairly settled that unless initial demand is proved,

mere acceptance and possession of currency is of no consequence. In

the light of such requirements, evidence on record is put to scrutiny.



7.    It is noticed that here, PW2, who lodged complaint to ACB, is

examined at Exhibit 22 wherein he deposed that he and his brother

Kalusing possess land at Paladhi and they have a dispute with their

neighbour in respect of trees of over common bandh. Therefore, they

decided to get land measured. He claims that he and his brother

Kalusing both went to the office of T.I.L.R. on 20.05.2008. He claims

that, when they approached accused, he told them to initially deposit

Rs.500/- for measurement and if there is urgency in carrying out

measurement, then Rs.1000/- will have to be deposited by way of

chalan. He claims that again, he and his brother approached accused

on 22.05.2008 and finally paid the chalan through SBI bank and

accused told them that they would receive notice of measurement by

post. It was accordingly received on 03.07.2008 informing the date of

measurement to be 15.7.2008. He further deposed that on

15.07.2008, accused and one Ragade measured their land. According
                                                      CriAppeal-539-2012
                                  -6-

to him, at that time accused told them that they will have to lose 2/3 rd

bighas of land and to save it, they should pay Rs.5000/-, and after

negotiations, this witness agreed to pay Rs.2000/-. Rs.500/- were

paid at that time and remaining were agreed to be paid on the next

day. But he approached ACB, gave complaint Exhibit 23 and then he

deposed about next day panchas being called, introduced to him, he

narrating panchas his story, panchas signing over his complaint and

thereafter   he   narrated   about      procedure   and   demonstration

undertaken for application of anthracene powder to the currency.



      In para 6 he deposed that when they all were proceeding

towards the office of accused, at that time, on the way, complainant

received telephone call from accused questioning him within how

much time he would reach. All members of the raiding party had

heard the conversation after the speaker of his mobile was kept on.

Thereafter, he and pancha went to the office of the accused. That,

accused was present in the office. He deposed that, he told accused

that he had brought the amount and that they should go for taking

tea. Accordingly they went and while taking tea, accused asked him

how much amount is brought, and he answered that he has brought

Rs.1500/- upon which accused said to give Rs.100/- or Rs.200/-

extra, but he told accused that he would pay only Rs.1500/- as
                                                      CriAppeal-539-2012
                                  -7-

decided earlier and thereafter he gave money which accused

accepted, followed by rely of signal.



      While under cross, he admitted that on 22.05.2008 and

30.07.2008, he had not tendered any application to the accused. He

also admitted that, he did not meet Mr. Ragade that day. He admitted

that, Mr. Ragade had been to his field for about two hours but there

was no discussion at that time. He also stated that one peon was

accompanying them. Initially he denied about paying Rs.500/- to

accused in the field on 15.07.2008, but when his chief was

confronted, he answered that material therein about paying Rs.500/-

is not correct. There is omission to the extent of accused saying to him

that he will lose 2/3 bighas of land and to save it, he should pay

Rs.5000/-. He admits about one Shishupal Pardeshi, who is his cousin

brother-in-law, advising him to approach ACB and also accompanying

him to the ACB office on 30.07.2008. He answered that he had given

mobile number to the accused by writing in his own handwriting, but

he is unable to remember as to when he had given it to accused. To a

question, whether as long as he was in the office of accused, no talks

had taken place about demand of money and therefore accused was

taken for tea, this witness had made gestures with hands suggesting

that accused made gestures with hand inquiring about money. To a
                                                      CriAppeal-539-2012
                                   -8-

further question as to from which place he gave signal to the raiding

party, witness answered that there was no question of giving signal to

the raiding party as they were standing near him. Rest is all denial.



8.    Thus, from above evidence it is clear that firstly, complainant

was all throughout accompanied by his brother Kalusing, but Kalusing

is not examined. He has admitted that he has not given any

application   for   measurement.    His   testimony   shows    that     on

15.07.2008, when measurement was carried out, that time accused

was accompanied by one Ragade and he was actually the Cadastral

Surveyor who carried out measurement but even Ragade is not

examined. Though in chief he stated about accused informing about

losing 2/3rd bighas of land and to save it, to pay Rs.5000/-, it is

proved to be an omission. Another pertinent feature of his testimony

is that, in para 6 of his chief he stated that after he and pancha

approached accused in his office, he himself seems to have offered

money, as he stated that he told accused that he has brought amount

and they should go for tea. His such testimony shows that even while

carrying out main trap, prior to any demand, complainant seems to

have offered to pay. Apparently therefore, there is no demand at this

stage till they go for tea, rather there is offer from complainant.

Consequently, as point out, there is no demand.
                                                      CriAppeal-539-2012
                                   -9-




9.    Further, though complainant PW2 speaks about accused

making phone call on his mobile while they they were proceeding to

meet accused, investigating machinery has not gathered CDR to

demonstrate such call being received or any demand being made over

phone. Moreover, witness deposed about he carrying mobile of his

son and he is unable to state as to when he shared said mobile

number to the accused. Again, though he has deposed about all

hearing conversation after speaker was kept on, conversation has not

been recorded by Investigating Officer. Even his testimony in para 6

regarding the events that took place in the office of accused and while

going to    tea, it   is   doubtful      whether shadow    pancha was

accompanying him, because he only names himself as well as accused

going for tea. His further cross shows that during visit to the field for

measurement, one peon was also accompanying accused and

Cadastral Surveyor Ragade, but said peon is also not examined.

Consequently, important witnesses who could have corroborated

demand, namely, Kalusing (cousin brother-in-law of complainant) as

well as the said peon are not examined by prosecution Therefore on

the point of initial demand, there is no corroboration.
                                                     CriAppeal-539-2012
                                 -10-

10.    It is fairly settled position that demand is sina qua non to

attract the charges. Law to this extent has been dealt by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Purnandu Biswas (2005)

12 SCC 576 and T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC

401.



11.    PW3 is the shadow pancha. Law is fairly settled that in cases of

such nature, complainant being interested party, it is expected of

independent witness to corroborate complainant. To this extent law is

loud and clear in the judgment of Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State Of

Maharashtra (1979) 4 SCC 526. In the light of such requirements,

evidence of shadow pancha is visited.



12.    PW3 deposed at Exhibit 24A regarding being called to ACB

office, visiting it, hearing complainant’s grievance, endorsing Exhibit

23, and he further narrated the procedure undertaken by ACB

authorities for drawing pre trap panchanama, application of

anthracene powder to the currency notes and giving necessary

instructions.



       Regarding the main trap, he deposed that while they were

proceeding to Jamner and when they had reached Neri, complainant
                                                        CriAppeal-539-2012
                                   -11-

received one telephone call, upon which Investigating Officer

suggested all to keep quite and to listen the conversation. According

to him, said telephone call was from accused and he told complainant

that he was to come to his office with money and why he has not

reached in his office by time, and complainant told him that he would

reach to his office within short time. It is to be noted that, this witness

does not speak like PW2 complainant that, conversation was heard by

all as complainant had put the speaker of his mobile on. Therefore,

witnesses are not consistent.



      Regarding the main trap he deposed that he himself,

complainant and accused came to take tea near Jamner bus stand and

raiding party followed them. According to him, there were some talks

between complainant and accused and thereafter complainant took

out currency and handed over it to the accused. His such evidence

clearly shows that he had not heard the actual conversation between

complainant and accused and that, in what context money changed

hands. Again, this witness had affirmed presence of Shishupal

Pardeshi, i.e. cousin brother-in-law of complainant, who is shown to

be instrumental since beginning till main trap is conducted, but is not

examined. Admittedly, as stated above, alleged conversation over cell

phone is not substantiated either by recording the alleged
                                                        CriAppeal-539-2012
                                    -12-

conversation nor by collecting CDR and this witness in cross has

admitted that Investigating Officer did not instruct complainant on

the point of use of his cell phone after the conversation. Therefore,

vital material is missed by the investigating machinery.



13.      Another feature of this case is that, as pointed out, it has come

on record that actual measurement was done by Mr. Ragade and he

was the Cadastral Surveyor who was expected to carry out

measurement and even issue measurement map. It has merely come

on record that accused was in the company of Mr. Ragade, but there

is no confirmation on this point, as Ragade himself is not examined.

When sanctioning authority himself has endorsed in cross that it is

Ragade who drew the map and it bore his signature, question arises

as to for what work accused could have demanded bribe. Even

sanctioning authority has admitted that there was no any document

as to when copy of map was handed over to complainant, and he

failed to ascertain when the map was given to the complainant. But

his such answers show that work of issuing map was already done

and therefore doubt arises about motive to put demand. Therefore,

this is also another factor which creates doubt about prosecution

story.
                                                       CriAppeal-539-2012
                                  -13-

14.   Resultantly, case of prosecution not being free from doubt,

there cannot be said to be error or perversity on the part of trial Judge

in acquitting the accused. Hence, following order is passed :

                                ORDER

                   The criminal appeal is dismissed.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre