ULHAS S/O MADHAVRAO NARAGUDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:39392


                                             *1*                apeal694a714o14


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.694 OF 2014

                Ulhas s/o Madhavrao Naragude,
                Age : 54 years, Occupation : Nil,
                R/o Ravindranath Tagore Nagar,
                Latur.
                                               ...Appellant/ accused No.2
                       - Versus -

                The State of Maharashtra.
                                                     ...Respondent/ State.
                                               …
                Shri Pralhad D. Bachate, Advocate a/w Shri Sachin S. Panale,
                Advocate for the appellant/ accused.
                Shri C.V. Bhadane, APP for the respondent/ State.
                                               …

                                        WITH
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.714 OF 2014

                Dhananjay Baburao Kopre,
                Age : 60 years, Occupation : Retired from
                Government Service,
                R/o Ausa, Taluka Ausa,
                District : Latur.
                                               ...Appellant/ accused No.1
                       - Versus -

                The State of Maharashtra.
                Through ACB Office,
                Latur.
                                                     ...Respondent/ State.
                                                …
                Shri Rajendrraa S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Shri Vishal
                A. Chavan, for the appellant/ accused.
                Shri C.V. Bhadane, APP for the respondent/ State.
                                                …
                              *2*                 apeal694a714o14




                   CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                   DATE : 24 August 2026


JUDGMENT :-

1.          Since both appeals are arising out of the same

judgment and order of conviction, they are being decided by this

common judgment.


2.          By these appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the CrPC’), the

appellants/ accused challenge the impugned judgment and order

dated 06.11.2014 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions

Judge, Latur, in Special Case (ACB) No.1/2009 by which, both

the appellants/ accused have been convicted for offence

punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988, (for short, ‘the PC Act’) and they are sentenced to suffer

Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of

Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they are directed to

suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. They have

been also convicted for the offence punishable under Section

13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and are sentenced to suffer
                                *3*              apeal694a714o14


Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of

Rs.2000/- each and in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment

for two months. Accused No.2 is further convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act and he is

sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to

pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, to suffer Rigorous

Imprisonment for two months. All the substnative sentences were

directed to run concurrently.


3.          The brief facts leading to filing of the present

appeals are as under:


      (a)   The complainant (PW-1), Sitaram S/o Suryawanshi,

a farmer required permission from the Irrigation Department,

Branch Office, Ausa, for lifting water for irrigation of his land.

Accordingly, on 30.10.2006, he approached the said office and

met accused No.1–Kopre, who was working as a Clerk. The

complainant (PW-1) showed him the 7/12 extract of his land.

Accused No.1 informed him that he should first deposit the

arrears of water charges.


      (b)   On 09.11.2006, the complainant deposited the

arrears of water charges and obtained the payment receipt. On
                              *4*                apeal694a714o14


the same day, when he approached accused No.1 and showed

him the receipt, accused No.1 allegedly demanded an amount of

₹3,000/- from him, stating that the amount was to be paid for

himself as well as for his superior officers. The complainant

thereafter expressed his desire to meet the superior officer.

Accused No.1 took him to the chamber of accused No.2–

Naragude, Branch Officer, Ausa. The complainant informed

accused No.2 that accused No.1 was demanding ₹3,000/- from

him and also stated that he had already paid the arrears of water

charges and was short of money. According to the prosecution,

accused No.2 stated that the amount could be reduced and asked

the complainant to wait outside. After some time, accused No.1

came out of the chamber of accused No.2 and informed the

complainant that accused No.2 had directed him to collect

₹2,000/- from the complainant. Accused No.1 allegedly further

told him that the requisite permission would be granted only

upon payment of the said amount. The complainant (PW-1),

therefore, assured accused No.1 that he would pay the amount on

16.11.2006 and accused No.1 asked him to bring ₹2,000/- in the

afternoon, stating that he would keep the proposal ready.
                              *5*                   apeal694a714o14


        (c)    As the complainant was unwilling to pay the

demanded bribe, he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau,

Latur, on 15.11.2006 and lodged a complaint with the then Dy.

S.P., ACB, Latur. The complaint was reduced into writing and

was verified by the complainant. The ACB thereafter secured the

presence of two panch witnesses from the Office of the

Divisional Deputy Director of Agriculture, Latur.


        (d)    On 16.11.2006, the complainant, the two panch

witnesses and the members of the ACB team assembled at the

ACB Office. The contents of the complaint were verified by the

panch witnesses. The complainant was thereafter instructed to

approach accused No.1 along with panch No.1 and to inquire

about    his   proposal. Twenty     currency   notes       of     ₹100/-

denomination, intended to be used as the trap amount, were

treated with anthracene powder and their serial numbers were

noted. Necessary instructions were also given regarding the

signal to be given by the complainant after the demand and

acceptance of the bribe amount.


        (e)    Accordingly, the complainant and panch No.1 went

to the office of the accused at the Administrative Building, Ausa,
                              *6*                 apeal694a714o14


at about 1.25 p.m. Accused No.1 was present there. On the

complainant inquiring about his proposal, accused No.1 allegedly

informed him that the proposal was ready and demanded the

amount. As accused No.2 was not present in the office.

Thereafter, at about 2.45 p.m., the complainant, panch No.1 and

another person came down from the office and proceeded

towards Tea Stall. At about 2.55 p.m., the complainant gave the

predetermined signal to the members of the trapping party. The

ACB officers and panch witness immediately reached the spot.

The tainted currency notes were thereafter recovered from the

possession of accused No.1 and, on examination under the

ultraviolet lamp, anthracene powder marks were allegedly

detected on the currency notes and other relevant articles.


      (f)   The articles and currency notes were seized under

the panchnama. Accused No.2, who arrived at the office

subsequently, was also subjected to search; however, according

to the prosecution, no anthracene powder traces were detected on

the articles found in his possession. Thereafter, the report was

lodged at Police Station, Ausa, and the offence was registered.

Investigation was carried out by P.I. Suryakant Patil (PW-5) and,
                               *7*                apeal694a714o14


upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be

filed against both the accused.


      (g)    The learned Trial Court framed the charge (exhibit

12) against both the accused for the offences punishable under

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

Prevention of Corruption Act. The contents of the charge were

explained to them in Marathi. Both the accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of total denial.


      (h)    After recording evidence of PW-1 complainant

Sitaram Suryawanshi, Balaji Kirwale panch No.1 (PW-2),

Baburao Pingat, sanctioning authority (PW-3), Mukund Hatote,

then Dy.SP. ACB (PW-4) and Suryakant Patil, IO (PW-5) and

hearing the accused and prosecution side, the learned Trial Court

was pleased to pass the impugned judgment as above.


4.           Learned Senior Advocate Shri Deshmukh appearing

for the appellant/ accused No.1 (Kopre) vehemently submitted

that on the basis of testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the

conviction of accused No.1 is not sustainable under the PC Act.

The complainant (PW-1) has not supported the case of

prosecution. Learned Senior Advocate has invited attention of
                             *8*                apeal694a714o14


this Court to the testimony of PW-1 and particularly the

suggestion put to him as to whether, accused No.1 really

accepted the amount from PW-1 or he laid the said amount on the

table of hotel and left that place and came outside and gave

signal to raiding party. PW-1 admitted that the work of granting

connection is not within the ambit of accused No.1, who was

clerk. Further suggestion was given to PW-1 that as accused No.2

(Branch Manager) was not available in office, therefore, on the

say of Hatote (PW-4), he implicated accused No.2 in the offence

and bribe amount was tried to be handed over to him. Further

suggestion was put to PW-1 that since accused No.2 was not in

the office, therefore, in his absence, raid will be futile and

therefore, on the say of DySP Hatote (PW-4), PW-1 has falsely

implicated accused No.1.


5.          Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that

though PW-2 (panch witness Balaji Kirvle) was declared as

hostile, however, he stated that he did not know as to what

happened in hotel and it never happened that accused No.1 had

demanded money to the complainant and accepted it.


6.          Learned Senior Advocate vehemently submitted that
                             *9*                  apeal694a714o14


as accused No.1 was clerk and the sanctioning authority is the

Superintending Engineer. In this case, composite sanction came

to be issued for accused Nos.1 and 2 by the Deputy Secretary of

Irrigation Department. Therefore, sanction accorded by PW-3

Baburao Pingat, is not valid in law. As such, in absence of valid

sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act, the Trial Court

ought not to have taken cognizance of the case.


7.          Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that

accused No.1 with the aforesaid piece of evidence cannot be held

guilty. The prosecution witnesses virtually failed to prove that

accused No.1 has demanded bribe amount from the complainant

while discharging his official duty. As the sanction was not

accorded by the competent authority, therefore, the prosecution

has failed to obtain valid sanction and as such, the conviction

cannot be based on the aforesaid parameters.


8.          Learned advocate Shri Bachate appearing for

accused No.2 (Naragude) submitted that accused No.2 was

working as Branch Officer in Irrigation Department. He was not

at all present during the time of trap. When he got message about

trap, he immediately rushed to the office and met the ACB
                               *10*                apeal694a714o14


officers. Accused No.2 submitted his written explanation to the

ACB office.


9.            Learned advocate for accused No.2 vehemently

submitted that the sanctioning authority, in the case of accused

No.2, is the Secretary of Irrigation Department. Learned advocate

took this Court through testimony of PW-3 sanctioning authority,

who has deposed that after obtaining consent from higher

officers, he has accorded sanction. In this case, the sanction is

issued by the authority, which is not competent to remove

accused No.2. Before according sanction, the Government sought

opinion from the Home Department as well as the learned

Advocate General and therefore, PW-3 sanctioning authority has

not applied his own mind independently and as such, there is no

subjective satisfaction for according sanction. PW-3 Deputy

Secretary is not appointing or removing authority of accused

No.2 and therefore, sanction is not accorded by the competent

authority. Learned advocate, therefore, relied upon the judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police,

Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16, to contend

that in such situation, the action taken on the basis of direction of
                                *11*              apeal694a714o14


higher officer is held to be illegal.


10.          Learned advocate Shri Bachate further submitted

that explanation submitted by accused No.2 has been

corroborated during the course of evidence. There is no sufficient

evidence against accused No.2 so as to attract the said offence.

PW-4 IO has also admitted in his evidence that there is no

verification of demand for verifying the truth in the present case.

In absence of such material in pre-trap panchanama, there would

be doubt as regards the prosecution case. Learned advocate

submitted that the complainant has already paid the amount of

Rs.9607/- towards arrears of irrigation taxes on 09.11.2006,

therefore, no amount was required to be paid by him. Thus, there

was no work pending with accused No.2 on 16.11.2006. Accused

No.2 used to visit various places for recovering arrears. The

complainant was offended when accused No.2 visited his house

twice for recovering arrears from him. According to learned

advocate, the prosecution has failed to establish the demand

against accused No.2 and there is no corroborative evidence to

establish that accused No.2 has demanded and accepted any

amount of bribe.
                              *12*                apeal694a714o14


11.         Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the

submissions of learned advocates for the appellants/ accused.

According to learned APP, the statements of witnesses proved the

guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore,

their evidence cannot be discarded. Learned APP has strenuously

supported the impugned judgment and order passed by learned

Trial Court. There is no lacuna in investigation. Tainted notes

have been recovered from accused No.1. There is sufficient

evidence to prove that there was demand from the accused

persons. According to learned APP, learned Trial Court after

analyzing evidence brought on record in proper perspective, has

rightly delivered the impugned judgment and order and has

rightly convicted the appellants. There is no scope for

interference in the impugned judgment. He, therefore, prayed for

dismissal of the present appeals.


12.         After hearing the submissions of learned advocates

and with their assistance, after going through evidence on record

carefully, it is apparent that at the relevant time, accused No.1

was clerk and accused No.2 was Branch Officer in the Irrigation

Department. Admittedly, the competent authority for accused
                               *13*              apeal694a714o14


No.1 is the Superintending Engineer and for accused No.2, it is

the Secretary of Irrigation Department. The prosecution has

forwarded the proposal to the Government. There seems to be

much deliberation on the said proposal as the opinion from the

Home Department as well as the learned Advocate General was

sought. On the basis of their opinion, PW-3 sanctioning authority

i.e. Deputy Secretary has accorded sanction in this case. Learned

advocates for the appellants/ accused rightly attacked on the

aspect that PW-3 is not at all competent authority for both

accused.   Moreover,    PW-3     has   not   applied     his       mind

independently and on the basis of opinion and instructions issued

to him by the Home Department and the learned Advocate

General, he accorded sanction. On both counts i.e. competency

and independent application of mind, the sanction order is not

correct and legal. Therefore, there is no hesitation in observing

that there is no valid sanction to prosecute the accused. This

Court in the case of Dr.Jagannath Rangnath Kakade vs. The State

of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.225/2004, Aurangabad

Bench, decided on 17.10.2025, has observed that the sanction

accorded by the authority, which is on lower post than the

competent authority, is not valid sanction. The sanction cannot be
                              *14*                   apeal694a714o14


accorded in mechanical manner without examining material or

without understanding the nature of allegations. However, in this

case, PW-3 has admitted that the opinion from the Home

Department as well as the learned Advocate General came to be

sought while according sanction. That being so, admittedly PW-3

has not applied his mind independently and, therefore, he has

acted under the dictation from higher authorities.


13.          In view of the above discussion, learned Senior

Advocate appearing for accused No.1 has rightly placed reliance

upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central

Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014) 14

SCC 295, particularly paragraph Nos.16 and 17, which read

thus:-


      “16.   In view of the above, the legal propositions can
             be summarised as under:
      16.1   The prosecution must send the entire relevant
             record to the sanctioning authority including
             the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of
             witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet
             and all other relevant material. The record so
             sent should also contain the material/document,
             if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of
             the accused and on the basis of which, the
             competent authority may refuse sanction.
      16.2   The authority itself has to do complete and
             conscious scrutiny of the whole record so
                              *15*                apeal694a714o14


             produced by the prosecution independently
             applying its mind and taking into consideration
             all the relevant facts before grant of sanction
             while discharging its duty to give or withhold
             the sanction.
      16.3   The power to grant sanction is to be exercised
             strictly keeping in mind the public interest and
             the protection available to the accused against
             whom the sanction is sought.
      16.4   The order of sanction should make it evident
             that the authority had been aware of all relevant
             facts/materials and had applied its mind to all
             the relevant material.
      16.5   In every individual case, the prosecution has to
             establish and satisfy the court by leading
             evidence that the entire relevant facts had been
             placed before the sanctioning authority and the
             authority had applied its mind on the same and
             that the sanction had been granted in
             accordance with law.

      17.    In view of the above, we do not find force in
             the    submissions      advanced      by     Shri
             Vishwanathan, learned ASG that the competent
             authority can delegate its power to some other
             officer or authority, or the Hon’ble Minister
             could grant sanction even on the basis of the
             report of the SP. The ratio of the judgment
             relied upon for this purpose, in A. Sanjeevi
             Naidu etc. v. State of Madras & Anr., AIR 1970
             SC 1102, is not applicable as in the case of
             grant of sanction, the statutory authority has to
             apply its mind and take a decision whether to
             grant sanction or not.”



14.          Learned advocate appearing for accused No.2 has

rightly placed reliance on Gordhandas Bhanji (supra) wherein, it
                                 *16*              apeal694a714o14


was observed that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a

statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of

explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order

of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he

intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are

meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings

and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be

construed objectively with reference to the language used in the

order itself. Public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the

powers vested in them, and persons to whose detriment orders

are made are entitled to know with exactness and precision what

they are expected to do or forbear from doing and exactly what

authority is making the order.


15.          Thus, in the case in hand, the sanction accorded by

PW-3 is not valid sanction. Hence, the cognizance taken by the

learned Trial Court on the basis of such sanction order is,

therefore, improper and illegal.


16.          As far as the demand is concerned, learned

advocates for the accused are right in contending that the demand

of bribe is not proved in its strict sense. In this case, the payment
                              *17*                apeal694a714o14


of arrears of irrigation charges are already made by the

complainant (PW-1) and there is no work pending with accused

Nos.1 and 2, therefore, there was no occasion for the accused to

demand bribe from the complainant. On the date of complaint to

the ACB, no amount was pending against the complainant and

therefore, there was no justification for demanding the amount

by the accused persons. It has come on record that accused No.2

in his official capacity used to visit the house of the complainant

for recovering arrears of irrigation charges. Therefore, the

complainant might have offended by visit of accused No.2. It is

also part of record that accused No.1 was working as clerk and

he was not competent to grant permission for new irrigation

connection. Therefore, there is no sufficient evidence to establish

that the accused have demanded bribe amount from the

complainant.


17.         The basic requirement of demand is required to be

proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to prove the

charges for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w

Section 13(2) of the PC Act, the proof of demand of illegal

gratification is absolutely necessary as it is sine qua non of the
                              *18*                apeal694a714o14


offence. If the prosecution fails to prove this demand of illegal

gratification, the charge for the aforesaid offences would fail. It

is clearly established in several judgments delivered by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court including the judgment in Neeraj Dutta

vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 ,

that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the

possession of the accused without proof of demand would not

establish the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of

the P.C. Act.    In absence of proof of demand and illegal

gratification and use of corrupt or illegal means to obtain any

valuable or pecuniary     advantage, it cannot be said that the

offence of taking bribe is proved. Thus, the proof of demand has

been held to be indispensable ingredient. Therefore, failure on

the part of prosecution to prove demand and illegal gratification,

would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the

accused would not entail his conviction for the alleged offences.


18.         In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of

the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove,

beyond reasonable doubt, the demand of illegal gratification by

the appellants and its acceptance pursuant thereto. So also, there
                                    *19*               apeal694a714o14


      is no valid sanction. Consequently, the foundational facts

      necessary to sustain the conviction under Section 7 and Section

      13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act have not been

      established. Accordingly, the following order is passed:


                                   ORDER
      (i)   The Criminal Appeals are allowed.
      (ii) The impugned judgment and order convicting and
      sentencing the appellants/ accused in Special Case (ACB)
      No.1/2009, is quashed and set aside.
      (iii) The appellants/accused are acquitted of the offences with
      which they were charged.
      (iv) The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled
      and the surety, if any, stands discharged.
      (v) The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the
      appellants.
      (vi) The record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
      Court.


      19.            The pending criminal application, if any, stands

      disposed of.




kps                                   (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)