THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusASARAM S/O FAKIRRAO AGALE

2026:BHC-AUG:45831


                                                                     CrAppeal-65-2015
                                                  -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2015

                 The State of Maharashtra,
                 Through Police Station Officer, Shivoor,
                 Tq.Vaijapur, District Aurangabad.               ….Appellant

                             Versus

                 Asaram s/o Fakirrao Agale
                 PHC B.No.268, Police Station Shivoor,
                 Tq.Vaijapur, District Aurangabad.               …..Respondent
                                                                 (Ori. Accused)
                                               …..
                 Shri G.O.Wattamwar, APP for Appellant.
                 Shri Rajendrraa Deshmukh a/w. Shri Hashmi Ubaid S. i/b.
                 Shri Devang Rajendrraa Deshmukh
                                               …..

                                          CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                          Reserved on       : 30-09-2026
                                          Pronounced on     : 01-10-2026
                 JUDGMENT :

                 1.    Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by Judgment and order dated

                 29-09-2014 passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act), Vaijapur in

                 Special Case (PC) No.8 of 2012 acquitting respondent from charges

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

                 Corruption Act, State has come up in appeal.



                                      PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

                 2.    In brief, case of prosecution in trial Court is that,   in the
                                                               CrAppeal-65-2015
                                     -2-

backdrop of quarrel between complainant’s maternal sister and her

brother-in-law on account of construction of house in her field,

complainant and her maternal sister went to Police Station Shivoor

and lodged report against her brother-in-law and they had also filed

a private complaint in the Court at Vaijapur.             Thereafter, when

complainant’s maternal sister returned to her matrimonial house, her

father-in-law abused and beat her. Therefore, again complainant and

his maternal sister went to Police Station Shivoor and lodged report

against her father-in-law.     The said father-in-law had also filed a

complaint against maternal sister of complainant at Shivoor Police

Station.      Both   such    cases    were      investigated      by    present

respondent/original accused, who was a Police Head Constable at

Shivoor Police Station. It is the case of prosecution that, accused

demanded Rs.5,000/- from complainant to initiate proceedings under

Chapter Case against his maternal sister’s father-in-law. On

negotiations, the amount was brought down to Rs.3,500/-. But as

complainant was not willing to pay bribe, he approached Anti

Corruption Bureau (ACB), gave complaint, as a result of which, ACB

authorities    initially   summoned        panchas,   introduced       them   to

complainant, gave necessary instructions and demonstrations and laid

main trap and after it was allegedly successful and on apprehension

of accused, complaint was lodged, which was duly investigated and
                                                     CrAppeal-65-2015
                                   -3-

finally, accused was tried vide above special case, but on trial, he

stood acquitted. Hence, instant appeal by State.


                             SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellant State :

3.     Learned APP took this Court through evidence of complainant

PW2 and pointed out that, after initial demand, ACB authorities sent

complainant with tainted currency by giving necessary instructions to

pay bribe on demand. That, complainant accordingly went alongwith

shadow pancha.         That, this witness complainant PW2 has

categorically deposed about accused demanding money. Learned APP

took this Court through the testimony of PW3 shadow pancha and

would point out that, even this witness, who was shadow pancha, has

deposed about demand raised by accused. That, both these witnesses

speak about accused accepting the bribe. Consequently according to

him, there is both demand as well as acceptance in prosecution

evidence. He pointed out that, minor discrepancies in evidence of

complainant and shadow pancha have given undue importance by the

trial Court. That, there were no major and material contradictions,

but learned trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the above

evidence in its correct perspective.
                                                      CrAppeal-65-2015
                                 -4-

4.    He further pointed out that, even learned trial Court erred in

holding that, sanction was invalid even when the authority, who

accorded sanction, had deposed before the Court about his

competence to accord sanction, about studying the papers, and on

due application of mind, granting sanction. He pointed out that,

service book extract of accused placed on record clearly shows that

PW1 sanctioning authority was competent to accord sanction, but

learned trial Court unfortunately has not exhibited the said document.

Resultantly, for above reasons, he seeks indulgence of this Court to

set aside the impugned judgment by allowing the appeal.



On behalf of Respondent/original accused :

5.    Shri Rajendrraa Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel for

respondent, at the outset, would point out that, here, PW1

sanctioning authority was not competent authority to accord sanction

and that accused was appointed by Commissioner of Police, who was

higher in rank to the rank held by PW1 sanctioning authority. That,

there was admission by PW1 in cross-examination to that extent and

therefore, when sanction was by incompetent person, it is his

submission that the same is invalid and rightly held so by the learned

trial Court.
                                                       CrAppeal-65-2015
                                  -5-

6.    He further pointed out that, PW2 complainant and PW3

shadow pancha are not consistent and are not lending support to each

other. He pointed out that, though these witnesses claimed to be

together at the time of main trap, they are at variance and therefore,

their evidence is not worthy of credence.       He pointed out that,

according to PW2 complainant, bribe amount was kept by accused in

left side pocket of his shirt, but contrary to it, PW3 shadow pancha

speaks about bribe amount kept in right side pocket of his pant and

resultantly, it is his submission that, such contradiction and variance

being material on the point of demand and acceptance, learned trial

Court has rightly disbelieved case of prosecution and acquitted the

accused. For such reasons, he justifies the Judgment and order of

acquittal and prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.


                    ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

7.    Perused the evidence.      As regards validity of sanction is

concerned, there is testimony of PW1 Amitesh Kumar, who is

examined at Exhibit 11 and in his deposition, he has stated that he

studied the papers received by him, applied mind to it, and concluded

that it was a fit case to accord sanction. According to him, he was

competent authority to appoint and remove the Police Head

Constable.
                                                      CrAppeal-65-2015
                                    -6-

      In his cross-examination, after admitting that appointing

authority is competent to remove an employee and after admitting

that Commissioner of Police is higher in rank to Superintendent of

Police, in paragraph 4 of cross-examination, he admitted that, in the

service record of the accused, it is referred that, accused was

appointed by the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. Resultantly,

as this witness was Superintendent of Police at the relevant time and

he having admitted that Commissioner of Police is higher in rank than

Superintendent of Police and in view of above admission of

appointment of accused by the Commissioner of Police, obviously

PW1 sanctioning authority was not competent to accord sanction and

therefore, sanction accorded by him is invalid.



8.    As regards to aspects of demand and acceptance are concerned,

which are sine qua non, evidence of PW2 complainant and PW3

shadow pancha is put to scrutiny.

      PW2 Vilas is the complainant and he, in his evidence at Exhibit

19, deposed about quarrel between brother-in-law of his maternal

sister and her over construction of house in her field and his material

sister lodging report and also filing a private complaint and

subsequently, her father-in-law filing a complaint against her and

therefore, he and she going to Shivoor Police Station and he claims to
                                                       CrAppeal-65-2015
                                  -7-

have approached accused, a Police Head Constable, who was handed

over investigation of above complaints.       In paragraph 2 of his

examination-in-chief, he speaks of demand of Rs.5,000/- by accused

for initiation of chapter case proceedings against opposite party of her

sister and he also deposes about figure of bribe amount being brought

down to Rs.3,500/- on negotiations, but he approaching ACB with a

complaint and said authority entertaining his complaint, calling

pancha PW3 Macchindra. In paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief,

he deposed about procedure of application of anthracene powder and

necessary instructions being issued.        In paragraph 4 of his

examination-in-chief, he claims that when he and shadow pancha

were proceedings towards the office of accused to pay bribe, on the

way, he received a phone call from accused and told him about

change in the venue of meeting from Shivoor Police Station to Sai

Mewad Hotel. He deposed that he, shadow pancha and accused sat

in the said hotel, took tea and breakfast and thereafter, accused asked

him whether he had brought the amount and when he was told about

it being brought, according to him, accused demanded the amount

saying that it was promised to pay amount in respect of complaint

filed by complainant’s sister. He talked with accused about his work

and he further said that accused told him to pay amount then only he

will do work of his sister. That time he removed tainted currency
                                                             CrAppeal-65-2015
                                    -8-

from his shirt pocket, held it before accused, who accepted it, and

thereafter, kept the tainted currency in the left side pocket of his own

shirt. He deposed that, thereafter he gave predetermined signal after

which raiding party caught accused.             After stating so much, he

deposed in examination-in-chief itself that he does not remember on

which     document     his   signature    was    obtained.    On    repeated

questioning, he deposed that, accused kept the bribe amount in the

left side pocket of shirt.

        While under cross-examination, he admitted that, on the date

of arrest of accused, chapter case was already filed before the Court of

Executive Magistrate, Vaijapur. In cross-examination, he denied that

after the trap, statement is recorded by ACB. He is unable to give

colour of clothes of accused. Again in cross-examination, he stated

that shadow pancha had taken out amount from shirt pocket of

accused.

        Thus according to this witness, after accepting tainted currency,

accused kept it in his shirt pocket and even shadow pancha took out

from there.

        However, as pointed out, PW3 Macchindra, shadow pancha,

who is looked upon as an independent witness and who is expected to

corroborate to complainant on the events of trap, has not stated about

accused accepting the bribe and keeping it in his shirt pocket, but he
                                                      CrAppeal-65-2015
                                 -9-

deposed about accused keeping tainted currency in his pant pocket.

Therefore, his such answer creates doubt about whether PW3 shadow

pancha was at all in the company of PW2 complainant and was party

to the act of demand and acceptance.


9.    Further PW2 complainant and PW3 shadow pancha are not

consistent about the actual conversation which took place between

complainant and accused while they were in the hotel, as according to

PW2 complainant, accused placed order for tea and breakfast and

demanded the amount again saying that it was promised to pay

amount in respect of complaint filed by his sister and accused had

asked whether he had brought the amount, however, PW3 shadow

pancha has a different narrative as in paragraph 3 of his examination-

in-chief, he deposed that, after he and complainant went to the hotel,

that time a person came and complainant told him that he is accused

and thereafter, there were exchange of greetings between them and

according to this witness, complainant offered cold drinks to the

accused.   However, PW2 complainant himself has stated about

accused ordering tea and not cold drinks. Again this witness PW3

shadow pancha has not deposed like PW2 complainant about accused

making a phone call to complainant for changing the venue of

meeting from Shivoor Police Station to Sai Mewad Hotel and PW3
                                                     CrAppeal-65-2015
                                -10-

shadow pancha, as stated above, has directly deposed about he and

complainant sitting in a hotel and thereafter, a person i.e. accused

coming there. Therefore, witnesses are not consistent.


10.   Further though PW2 complainant speaks of receiving a phone

call from accused for change of venue, CDR is not placed on record.

Even PW4 Investigating Officer does not speak about PW2

complainant receiving a phone call from accused for changing the

venue from Shivoor Police Station to a hotel. Apparently, PW2

complainant himself does not seem to have supported prosecution as

post-trap, he denied his statement being recorded by the PW4

Investigating Officer or he causing sign over any document.      Not

finding him supporting, learned APP does not seem to have sought

permission of the trial Court declaring him hostile and his testimony

after deposition to above extent seems to have been concluded.


11.   Resultantly, for above reasons, case of prosecution is not

proved beyond reasonable doubt. PW2 Complainant and PW3 shadow

pancha are not consistent and corroborating each other for reasons

stated above.     Sanction is not by the competent authority.

Consequently, no fault can be found on the part of the learned trial

Court in acquitting the accused. Therefore, appeal deserves to be
                                                      CrAppeal-65-2015
                                 -11-

dismissed. Accordingly, following order is passed :



                               ORDER

            The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.




                                         [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
SPT