RAMCHANDRA DINKAR KHARCHE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38594


                                                                           621.14apeal
                                                 (1)

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.621 OF 2014


                 1.    Ramchandra Dinkar Kharche,
                       Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
                       R/o : Shradha Colony, Gat No.471,
                       Plot No.4, Jalgaon

                 2.    Kailas Vitthal Sonawane,
                       Age: 54 years, Occu: Service,
                       R/o : Survey No.415, Plot No.19,
                       Shirsoli Road, Mohadi Phata,
                       Jalgaon                                     ….APPELLANTS

                       VERSUS

                       State of Maharashtra                        ….RESPONDENT
                                                 …..
                 Mr M. A. Tandale, Advocate for Appellants
                 Ms B. B. Gunjal, APP for Respondent/State
                                                 …..
                                          CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                              DATE : 18 AUGUST, 2026

                 JUDGMENT :-


                 1.          Heard Mr Tandale, learned Advocate for the appellants

                 and learned APP Ms Gunjal for respondent/State.


                 2.          By this appeal, the appellants (accused) have challenged

                 the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30/09/2014,

                 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Special
                                                              621.14apeal
                                  (2)

(ACB) Case No.08/2012, convicting them for the offence punishable

under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the said Act’).


3.          The prosecution story in short is as under :-

            The complainant/ Bapu Shamrao Nerkar/PW-1 has filed

complaint (Exhibit-11) before the Anti-Corruption Officer, Jalgaon on

18/11/2011, stating therein that his nephews namely, Sunil Suresh

Nerkar and Somnath Suresh Nerkar are the Bhogwatadar of the open

plot bearing Gut No.404/1 and Gut No.404/2, respectively, of village

Fupanagari. The Grampanchayat Fupanagari passed Resolution No.7

on 29/09/2010, thereby recording names of the aforesaid nephews of

complainant. At that time, accused No.2/appellant No.2/ Kailas Vitthal

Sonawane was Gramsevak of Fupanagari.           He had demanded the

copies of Namuna No.8 to accused No.1 (Ramchandra Kharche) in

respect of above plots to complainant. On 17/11/2011 the complainant

made a phone call to accused No.1/Ramchandra Kharche, who was

then Gramsevak of Fupanagari, for demanding copies of Namuna No.8

of the year 2011 in respect of the aforesaid plots.         Accordingly,

accused No.1/Kharche asked complainant to come near Mahabal stop

and from there, they were supposed to go to accused No.2/Kailas
                                                            621.14apeal
                                 (3)

Sonawane, who was previously working as a Gramsevak of

Fupanagari.    Accordingly, complainant went there and demanded

copies of Namuna No. 8 of the aforesaid plots.           The accused

No.1/Kharche told him that he was not having information about said

proceedings, as previously accused No.2 was Gramsevak and said

accused No.2 had given copies of Namuna No.8 of 2010. Thereafter,

complainant and accused No.1 went to house of accused No.2. It is

alleged that, for the purpose of issuing copies of Namuna No.8,

accused No.2 had demanded money from Suresh Nerkar who is

brother of complainant. Said Suresh had agreed to give money, but

has not paid the same to him. Thereafter, accused No.2 told the

complainant, if he desires to have copies of Namuna No.8, then he will

have to pay Rs.7,000/- to both the accused. Accused No.1/Kharche

further told the complainant that, unless and until the money is paid,

the copies of Namuna No.8 will not be issued. They further informed

him that the said amount be paid on 18/11/2011 in between 11.00 a.m.

to 12.00 noon in the campus of Panchayat Samiti, Jalgaon.

Accordingly, accused persons and the complainant left the place.

4.            As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe of

Rs.7000/- to appellants/accused, he filed complaint with the Anti-

Corruption Office, Jalgaon.    After completing the formalities, the
                                                             621.14apeal
                                  (4)

Investigating Officer/Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr S. S.

Deshmukh, Anti-Corruption Office, Jalgaon decided to lay trap on the

accused persons. Prior to that, he decided to make verification of bribe

demand. Therefore, he sent complainant and panch No.1 with digital

voice recorder. After some time, they came back. Dy.S.P. Deshmukh

took back voice recorder from them and further asked complainant as

well as Panch as to what happened. Complainant and Panch No.1 told

him that, both the accused have demanded bribe of Rs.3000/- to

complainant. Therefore, Dy.S.P. Deshmukh asked the complainant and

Panchas to come next day to the ACB office.


5.          On 19/11/2011, at about 11.40 a.m., the trap was laid. The

Dy.S.P. given instructions to all the members of the raiding team. The

accused persons, during the trap, were sitting near the tea stall. After

some time, when complainant gave signal of giving bribe amount to

accused, to the members of raiding team, as instructed to him, all the

members of raiding team went near the accused persons. The Dy.S.P.

asked Panch No.1 as to where the bribe amount is kept. Panch No.1

told that accused No.1 has accepted bribe amount and given it to

accused No.2 and the said amount was kept in the pocket of his shirt.

Accordingly, the bribe amount was seized and both the accused were

caught hold by raiding team. They were brought to the ACB office.
                                                            621.14apeal
                                  (5)

Necessary formalities were completed. When the hands of both the

accused were examined in the darkness under the light of ultraviolet

lamp, the same were found glittering with greenish colour.

Accordingly, the Dy.S.P. took both the accused to the Zilha Peth Police

Station, Jalgaon and lodged complaint at Exh.29. The statement of

witnesses came to be recorded and accordingly, the proposal for

according sanction to prosecute accused persons came to be

forwarded.    Subsequently, sanction order (Exh.30) came to be

received. After completion of investigation, the Dy.S.P. filed charge-

sheet against appellants.


6.           On the basis of aforesaid charge-sheet, the charges were

framed under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act at Exh.

4.   Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.           The

prosecution, in order to prove their case, examined four witnesses,

namely, PW-1/Bapu Shamrao Nerkar, complainant at Exh.10; PW-2/

Dasbhau Nimba Wagh, Panch No.1 at Exh.15; PW-3/Shivaji Sakharam

Deshmukh, Investigating Officer at Exh.27 and PW-4/ Shital Shajirao

Ugale, who accorded sanction for prosecuting the accused, at Exh.37.

7.           After recording the evidence, learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Jalgaon convicted the appellants for the offence punishable
                                                               621.14apeal
                                   (6)

under Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and

sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each

and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to pay fine, simple

imprisonment for three months.


8.           Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order

dated 30/09/2014, the appellants have approached this Court by filing

present appeal.


9.           Mr Tandale learned Advocate for the appellants submits

that the prosecution has virtually failed to prove the charges against the

appellants and the impugned judgment is contrary to law. According

to him, in order to prove the charges under Sections 7, 12, 13(1) (d)

and 13(2) of the Act, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that

there was valid demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount.

He submits that, mere possession and recovery of the currency notes

from the accused, without proof of demand, cannot constitute offence

under Section 7 of the Act. According to him, demand of illegal

gratification is sine qua non to constitute offence under the Act, and

unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has

voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe, offence

under Section 7 of the Act cannot be proved.
                                                               621.14apeal
                                   (7)

10.          Mr Tandale further submits that the complainant as well

as Panch witnesses are the interested witnesses, who are concerned in

the success of the trap, and therefore, their testimonies are liable to be

tested more carefully. The Court is also required to seek independent

corroboration before convicting the accused persons in such cases.


11.          Mr Tandale further submits that, in the evidence of the

complainant, he himself stated that, initially the accused persons have

not accepted the bribe amount. This aspect goes to show that he

himself stated that, at the time of giving money to accused No.1, he

had returned back the said amount to complainant, and thereafter,

complainant himself kept that amount in the hands of accused No.2.

When the Anti Corruption Officer caught hold the accused, the amount

was in the hands of accused No.2. Thereafter, since the amount was in

the hands of accused No.2, the Anti Corruption Officials asked

accused No.2 to keep the amount from his hands in his pocket. Mr

Tandale, therefore, submits that this kind of evidence does not

constitute sufficient incriminating material against accused persons, so

as to attract offence under Section 7 and 12 of the Act.



12.          Mr Tandale then submits that accused persons were

working as Gramsevak at Fupanagari Grampanchayat.                     The
                                                              621.14apeal
                                    (8)

complainant was pursuing his case for sanctioning the plots for his

nephews.    According to Mr Tandale, the present appellants were

working in the capacity of Gramsevek and Gramsevak at all not

entitled to sanction such plots in favour of the nephews of the

complainant. The said task was entrusted to the Collector of the

District, and Gramsevak are at all cannot make such allotment or pass

such sanction order. He further submits that the amount which has

alleged to have been paid to the appellants/accused persons cannot be

termed as bribe amount, as the same is not accepted for doing an

official act, as the appellants are not empowered to issue the

allotment/sanction order in respect of plots in question.          Thus,

according to Mr Tandale, the appellants cannot be said to have

entrusted with the said official act, and therefore, the gratification in

question cannot be considered as motive or reward for doing or

forbearing to do an official act.



13.          Mr Tandale further submits that the prosecution has failed

to prove the aspect of alleged demand of bribe, acceptance thereof, and

recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused persons.

He further submits that, even if the tainted amount is recovered from

the possession of accused persons, in absence of proof of demand and
                                                               621.14apeal
                                      (9)

acceptance of money, as an illegal gratification, therefore not sufficient

to establish guilt of the accused.


14.             Mr Tandale also relies upon another aspect that the

prosecution has obtained the sanction order after the prescribed period.

He points out that the sanction order came to be issued on 07/08/2012.

The proposal for prosecuting appellants was forwarded to the

sanctioning authority on 03/03/2012.        He submits that, as per the

provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act, there is a time limit of three

months for granting of sanction for prosecuting the accused persons.

Accordingly, he submits that the prosecution has failed also on this

aspect.


15.             To buttress his aforesaid submissions, Mr Tandale relies

upon the following judgments:-


          (I)      B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P. , 2014 ALL SCR 1619;
          (II)     C. M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P. Th. I.P., AIR 2011
                   Supreme Court 608;
          (III) T. Subramanian Vs. State of T.N., (2006) 1 Supreme
                   Court Cases 401;
          (IV) Ram Prakash Arora Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973
                   Supreme Court 498; and
                                                              621.14apeal
                                 (10)

           (V)   Vineet Narain and others Vs. Union of India and
                 another, (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 226.



16.          Accordingly Mr Tandale vehemently prays for allowing

the instant appeal.


17.          Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the instant

appeal. She submits that the prosecution has sufficiently established

the guilt of the appellants before the learned Trial Court. The evidence

as regards demand of bribe, acceptance as well as recovery is

suggestive of the guilt that the accused have committed aforesaid

offence. She then submits that the accused persons, in discharge of

their official duty, have demanded amount of bribe from the

complainant, and therefore, they are liable to be punished under the

provisions of the Act.


18.          With the assistance of learned Advocate for the appellants

and learned APP for the respondent/State, after going through the

record of the matter, it is found that the complainant Bapu Nerkar had

lodged complaint with the Investigating Officer, alleging that accused

persons who were working as Gramsevak at the relevant time have

demanded bribe amount for issuing Namuna No. 8 in favour of his

nephews.    The complainant himself has stated that nephews were
                                                             621.14apeal
                                  (11)

interested in getting allotment of the said plots from the Government.

He also admitted that the ultimate authority to sanction the plot vests

with the Collector of the District and the Gramsevaks are at all not

concerned with the allotment work. He had stated that, he requested

both the accused that they should forward the proposal through the

Tahsildar to the Collector. He had also admitted that, for getting the

plot sanctioned, the applicant is required to deposit an amount as per

the Government rate. He had also admitted that, previously accused

No.2 had raised objection that, as the plots sought to be claimed are

belonging to the Government, the same cannot be allotted to his

nephews. The complainant had also stated in his deposition that he

had informed both the nephews to file application with the

Government authorities for allotting the said plots to them, however,

they have not filed the said application with the Government

authorities for allotting the said plots. Upon criticizing this piece of

evidence, the question arises as to what official duty the appellants

were required to be performed in order to do favour with the

informant.


19.          In the case of Dalpat Singh and another Vs. State of

Rajasthan, AIR 1969 SC 17, it has been held that following

requirement are to be satisfied in order to attract the provisions of
                                                              621.14apeal
                                   (12)

Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (which is now equivalent to

Section 7 of the Act):-

         (I)      That, the accused at the time of offence was, or

         expected to be, a public servant;

         (II)     That, he accepted, or obtained, or agreed to accept, or

         attempted to obtain from some person a gratification;

         (III) That, such gratification was not a legal remuneration

         due to him, and

         (IV) That, he accepted the gratification in question as a

         motive or reward for (a) doing or forbearing to do an official

         act; or (b) showing, or forbearing to show favour or dis-

         favour to someone in the exercise of his official functions.



20.            With the aforesaid guidelines, as it is found that the

appellants at all cannot be said to have entrusted with the work of

allotment of plots to the nephews of complainant, any demand alleged

to have made by the complainant, cannot be termed as a gratification

as motive or reward for doing an official act.


21.            The case of the prosecution is destroyed by the

complainant himself when he specifically states in his deposition that,
                                                            621.14apeal
                                 (13)

initially when he offered the bribe amount during the trap to accused

No.1, the said accused had returned back the said amount to him

(complainant). Thereafter, immediately he had kept that amount in the

hands of accused No.2. Thereafter, the Anti Corruption team caught

hold accused No.2 when the amount was lying in the hands of accused

No.2. The ACB officials asked accused No.2 to keep the amount from

his hand to his pocket. Thus, with this quality of evidence, it is

inappropriate to hold accused persons guilty for offence punishable

under the Act. The prosecution case is also further destroyed by the

complainant himself when he deposed that, it is true that he had filed

false complaint against the accused. Therefore, it can be said that the

complainant himself has at all not supported the case of the

prosecution. Mr Tandale is right in relying upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Prakash Arora Vs. State of Punjab

(supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment stated that the

complainant as well as Panch witnesses are the interested and partisan

witnesses. They are concerned with the success of trap, and therefore,

their evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other

interested witnesses. Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that, in a

proper case, the Court should look for independent corroboration

before convicting accused persons.
                                                               621.14apeal
                                  (14)

22.          Mr Tandale is also right in relying upon the aspect that the

prosecution has obtained the sanction order after the prescribed period.

Though the sanction authority was not examined by the prosecution,

the same came to be examined at the behest of the defence, which has

filed application, and upon which, the learned Sessions Court passed

the order at Exh.30, thereby allowing the defence to examine the said

sanctioning authorities. Accordingly, the said authority/PW-4 came to

be examined, whose evidence came to be relied. The Hon’ble Apex

Court, in the matter of Vinit Narain and others (supra), upon which

Mr Tandale relies, had issued various guidelines, wherein at Sr. No.15

of paragraph No.58 of the said judgment, it is observed that “Time-

limit of three months for grant of sanction for the prosecution must be

strictly adhered to.” Thus, Mr Tandale is right in submitting that, the

prosecution has failed to issue the sanction order within a period of

three months.     Thus, the prosecution, by examining only four

witnesses, have at all not proved the charges against the accused

persons.


23.          In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered

opinion, the prosecution has virtually failed to prove that the appellants

have committed the offence under the Act. Therefore, the appellants
                                                             621.14apeal
                                   (15)

cannot be held guilty for the aforesaid crime and the their appeal

succeeds. Accordingly, I pass the following order :-


                                 ORDER


(I)      The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

(II)     The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

30/09/2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon

in Special (ACB) Case No.08/2012, convicting them for the offence

punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is hereby quashed and set

aside.

(III) The appellants/accused are acquitted of the offence under the

Act, for which they were charged.

(IV) The bail bonds of the appellants, if any, stand cancelled,

(V)      The fine amount, if any deposited by the appellants pursuant to

the order of Trial Court, shall be refunded to them, after due

verification.




                                     [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]

sjk