THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusPRAVIN SHANTARM MAHALE AND ANR.

2026:BHC-AUG:19426
                                                                        APPEAL-773-2015
                                                 -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 773 OF 2015

            The State of Maharashtra,
            Through Police Inspector,
            Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon                         … Appellant

                        Versus

            1.    Pravin Shantaram Mahale,
                  Age : 36 years, Occu. : Service,
                  R/o. Plot No.25, Usmanpura,
                  Tilak Nagar, Aurangabad.

            2.    Prafulla Bharat Patil,
                  Age : 30 years,
                  R/o. Plot No.42, Mohan Nagar,
                  Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.                           … Respondents
                                                                      (Orig. Accused)
                                                …..
            Mr. N. S. Tekale, APP for Appellant - State.
            Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Respondents.
                                                …..

                                              CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                      RESERVED ON : 28 APRIL 2026
                                   PRONOUNCED ON : 30 APRIL 2026

            JUDGMENT :

            1.           The correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated

            27.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in

            Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 11 of 2014 acquitting the accused respondent

            herein, from the charges under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with section

            13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is under challenge by the State.
                                                             APPEAL-773-2015
                                     -2-

             PROSECUTION CASE IN NUTSHELL IS AS UNDER

2.           Prosecution was launched against the accused no.1 Assistant

Motor Vehicles Inspector serving at Sub Divisional R.T.O. Office and

accused no.2 a private person, on the premise that, when de facto

complainant PW1 Sagar, who ran a driving school, had approached accused

no.1 for clearing permanent and learning licence, accused allegedly

demanded total amount of Rs.2,600/-. As complainant was not willing to

pay, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau office and PW3 P.I. Deshmukh

planned and executed trap, apprehended both accused, filed complaint,

investigated the same and on its completion, charge sheeted both the

accused, who were made to face trial vide Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 11 of

2014 before the learned Special Court, Jalgaon.


            On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the

prosecution, vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2015, both accused came

to be acquitted from all the charges. Hence, the instant appeal by State.


                               SUBMISSIONS

on behalf of Appellant – State :

3.           According to learned APP, accused no.1 an Assistant Motor

Vehicles Inspector in R.T.O. Office, Jalgaon and there is no dispute to that

extent. That, he had raised demand of bribe of Rs.2,600/- for signing and

clearing permanent and learning driving licence tendered by de facto
                                                            APPEAL-773-2015
                                     -3-

complainant, who was running a driving school and was authorized to

apply for issuance of licence. That, de facto complainant has in his evidence

narrated about approaching accused no.1 for causing signature over the

papers, but for doing work, accused had demanded bribe. That, de facto

complainant deposed about approaching Anti Corruption Bureau and he

also testified about the verification on demand being done, followed by

drawing of pre-trap panchanama. That, witness has also stated about

accused no.1 raising demand, but directing de facto complainant to make

payments to accused no.2. That, though accused no.2 accepted the amount,

it was on behalf of accused no.1.


4.           Learned APP would submit that, even shadow panch has

supported complainant about accompanying him to meet accused and he

was party to the conversation between complainant and accused no.1. That,

he was also party to the meeting with accused no.2, who had accepted

amount on behalf of accused no.1, as such, it is his submission that, there

was both demand as well as acceptance. However, according to him, in

spite of such evidence being on record, there is incorrect appreciation of

evidence, resulting into acquittal and thereby he seeks indulgence of this

Court by allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment.


On behalf of Respondent :-


5.           Learned counsel for respondent accused would justify the
                                                              APPEAL-773-2015
                                      -4-

order of acquittal by pointing out that prosecution failed to prove both

demand as well as acceptance and prays to dismiss the appeal for want of

merits.


                          EVIDENCE ON RECORD


6.           In the light of above discussion, evidence led by the

prosecution in trial Court is visited and re-appreciated. Apparently, there is

oral account of complainant PW1 at Exh.19, oral account of shadow panch

(PW2) at Exh.23 and evidence of Investigating Officer (PW3) at Exh.36. As

regards to documentary evidence is concerned, there is complaint at

Exh.20, bribe demand verification at Exh.25, pre-trap panchanama at

Exh.26 and spot panchanama at Exh.28 and sanction order at Exh.32.



7.            It is fairly settled legal position that, to attract the charges,

prosecution is expected to substantiate that there was demand followed by

acceptance. These are sine qua non for bringing home the charges and in

the light of such requirement, evidence on record is re-appreciated.



            PW1 de facto complainant at Exh.19, in examination-in-chief

deposed that, he was running a driving school named and styled as “Sachin

Motor Driving School” and he had licence to train the candidates. That, he

used to consult accused no.1 an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in R.T.O.

office for obtaining driving licence and claims to have filed proceedings of
                                                            APPEAL-773-2015
                                     -5-

58 learning driving licence and 22 permanent driving licence. According to

him, on 14.12.2010, accused no.1 told him to come at R.T.O. office with

Rs.2,600/- and that he would issue licence, and therefore, he approached

Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged complaint at Exh.20. In his further

testimony, he deposed about arrangement of panchas, he informing them

about his grievance and then the procedure taken by the Investigating

Officer for recording conversation and about Investigating Officer

explaining the procedure of demonstration of anthracene powder to the

currency notes. In paragraph 6 he deposed about proceedings to the R.T.O.

office after drawing the pre-trap panchanama while in the company of

panch Amol Patil. He further deposed that when they entered the R.T.O.

office and met accused no.1 and told that he had brought papers for

signature, but accused no.1 told him that he should first bring the signature

of Bang Saheb, and thereafter, he would cause his signature and when he

returned back to accused no.1 with signature of Bang Saheb, accused no.1

directed him to pay amount to accused no.2, who was sitting in Maruti 800

Car at the distance of about 20 feet and accordingly, he went to accused

no.2 and told him that accused no.1 had asked him to pay the amount to

accused no.2, who accepted Rs.2,300/- and followed by relay of signal.



            However, while under cross examination, in paragraph 8, he

admitted that, on 15.12.2010 i.e at the time of bribe demand verification,
                                                            APPEAL-773-2015
                                     -6-

he had learnt that work of proposals of licence was with Inspector Bang. He

admitted that it did happen after hearing conversation that Dy.S.P.

Deshmukh also came to know that accused persons have not raised demand

of bribe at the time of bribe demand verification, but still Investigating

Officer thought that accused may demand bribe, and hence, he further

decided to arrange trap in the afternoon.



8.           Further in paragraph 9 and 10 of the cross examination,

omissions are brought regarding conversation at the time of bribe demand

verification that “when we met accused no.1 and told him about he having

brought the papers for signatures and at that time accused no.1 had asked

him whether he had brought the money and he telling accused no.1 that he

had not brought the money and further said that in the afternoon he would

bring the money and that time accused no.1 said ‘ok’ and further asked him

to come in the afternoon. There is also omission in his statement to the ACB

Officer on the point that after entering R.T.O. office and meeting accused

no.1, he told accused no.1 that he had brought the papers for his signature

and that time he told him to bring signature of Bang Saheb, and thereafter,

he will sign the papers. Similarly, there are omissions about he retuning

back to accused no.1 and accused no.1 asking him to pay accused no.2. He

told accused no.2 that accused no.1 had asked him to pay amount to

accused no.2 and after accepting bribe amount, accused no.2 keeping the
                                                            APPEAL-773-2015
                                     -7-

amount in his left pocket. He has answered that, he is unable to state why

above facts are not finding place in the statement to ACB officer. Therefore,

above omissions are material omissions.



            Further while under cross examination, in paragraph 12, de

fact complainant has admitted that, at the time of trap, voice recorder was

not functioning properly, and therefore, conservation recorded was not

clear. He further admitted in paragraph 13 that, at the time of trap, no

conversation had taken place between accused no.1 and accused no.2.



9.           PW2 shadow panch, in his initial examination-in-chief stated

about visiting ACB office, meeting complainant, hearing his story, causing

signature over complaint, preparation of panchanama at Exh.25. In

paragraph 5 he deposed about he being instructed to go with complainant

to R.T.O. office and de facto complainant instructed to pay on demand and

he himself being instructed to keep watch. In paragraph 6 of his

examination-in-chief, he deposed that, after pre-trap panchanama he and de

facto complainant went to R.T.O. office and de facto complainant meeting

accused no.1, having a discussion with him about the work, at that time

accused no.1 asking him to meet Bang Saheb, who was sitting on opposite

side and after meeting Bang Saheb, he and de facto complainant again

going toward accused no.1 and there de facto complainant had “some

discussions” with accused no.1, and thereafter, they both going towards
                                                            APPEAL-773-2015
                                    -8-

accused no.2 who was standing outside the building and there also some

discussion taking place between complainant and accused no.2 and accused

no.2 demanding bribe and even accepted it, followed by relay of signal.



            While under cross, in paragraph 10, he answered that at the

time of bribe demand verification, when de facto complainant and accused

no.1 were talking, he himself went for drinking water and so he is unable to

state whether any conversation is recorded in voice recorder. He further

answered that after hearing the conversation, he became sure that accused

no.1 had not demanded any bribe. In further cross, he admitted that de

facto complainant had not submitted any documents either to accused no.1

or accused no.2.


                                ANALYSIS

10.         Therefore, on complete re-appreciation of evidence of

complainant and shadow panch, firstly, complainant has admitted that prior

to trap, when demand verification was done and conversation was

recorded, the same was not clear. Further, complainant has admitted that in

R.T.O. office after approaching accused no.1 he merely asked him to first go

to Officer Bang and obtained his signature. Complainant in his cross

examination has admitted that he realized that main signatory was Officer

Bang and not accused no.1. Further, from the story narrated by complainant

about main trap, it is emerging that there is no distinct evidence to show
                                                            APPEAL-773-2015
                                     -9-

that accused no.1 and accused no.2 has nexus with each other and that

accused no.2 was aware that he was to accept the bribe on behalf of

accused no.1.   It appears that, according to complainant, accused no.1

directed complainant to make payments to accused no.2, who was sitting in

a Maruti 800 Car, but as contrary to it, shadow panch, who was in his very

company has stated that, some discussion took place between complainant

and accused no.1 and thereafter they both went to accused no.2, who was

standing near the building of R.T.O. office. His story was therefore distinct

than PW1 complainant. Further answers given by the shadow panch in cross

examination clearly show that he was not party to the actual conversation

between de facto complainant and accused no.1 as he merely speaks about

some discussion taking place between both of them. He was also unaware

of the actual conversation which allegedly took place between complainant

and accused no.2.



11.          As stated above, when there is no evidence to show that

accused no.1 and accused 2 are connected with each other and that accused

no.2 was to accept bribe on behalf of accused no.1, mere acceptance by

accused no.2 would not bind accused no.1 also, more particularly when the

prosecution witnesses are admitting that accused no.1 had not raised any

demand.



            For above reasons, case of prosecution not being free from
                                                            APPEAL-773-2015
                                     -10-

doubt, learned trial Court does not seem to have committed any error in

granting acquittal. Hence, the following order is passed.


                                   ORDER

                     The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.


                                            (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)




Tandale