THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusABASAHEB DNYANDEV CHAURE

2026:BHC-AUG:46388


                                                                        CrAppeal-779-2006
                                                     -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 779 OF 2006
                 The State of Maharashtra                      ….Appellant


                             Versus

                 Abasaheb Dnyandev Chaure
                 Age: 45 years, Occu.: Service as
                 Revenue Inspector, Tahsil Office,
                 Osmanabad.                                    …..Respondent
                                                               (Original Accused)
                                                     …..
                 Mr.S.M.Ganachari, APP for Appellant.
                 Mr.Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent.
                                                     …..


                                            CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                            Reserved on        : 01-10-2026
                                            Pronounced on      : 05-10-2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.    In this appeal by State, there is challenge to judgment and

                 order dated 23-08-2006 passed by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad

                 in Special Case (AC) No.13 of 2003 acquitting present respondent

                 from offence under Sectionss 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of

                 the Prevention of Corruption Act.


                                        BRIEF FACTS OF CASE

                 2.    Case of prosecution in trial Court was that, accused, a Circle

                 Inspector in Tahsil Office Osmanabad demanded Rs.5,000/- for
                                                         CrAppeal-779-2006
                                    -2-

granting mutation entry and issuing 7/12 extract in respect of land

Gut   No.140     owned   by      Adarsha   Shikshan   Prasarak     Mandal,

Osmanabad, of which complainant PW2 was an Administrative

Officer. Initial payment of Rs.2,000/- was made afront and remaining

Rs.3,000/- to be paid after the work was over. As complainant PW2

was not willing to pay bribe, be approached Anti Corruption Bureau

(ACB), gave complaint, on the strength of which PW5 Investigating

Officer arranged independent panchas, gave necessary instructions to

them, demonstration of application of anthracene powder was also

given and thereafter, main trap was laid and accused was

apprehended.     On    complaint     by     PW5    Investigating    Officer,

investigation    was   carried     out,    duly   completed   and     after

chargesheeting accused and after trying him in above referred special

case, he came to be acquitted.

      Feeling aggrieved by the same, State has preferred instant

appeal.

                              SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellant State :

3.    Sum and substance of arguments of learned APP is that,

accused had demanded Rs.5,000/- for granting mutation entry. That,

he had demanded said amount and accepted part payment to the tune

of Rs.2,000/-.    That, complainant was told by accused that work
                                                    CrAppeal-779-2006
                                 -3-

would not be done unless remaining Rs.3,000/- was paid and

therefore, complaint was lodged with ACB, it was duly investigated.

Learned APP points out that, independent pancha PW3 was engaged

and he was made to accompany complainant. Both these witnesses

are consistent on the point of demand and acceptance. That, core of

their testimony on the point of demand and acceptance has remained

intact inspite of facing cross-examination.        That, even PW1

Sanctioning Authority had accorded sanction after due application of

mind.     Therefore, case of prosecution was full-proof.       That,

unfortunately evidence of prosecution has not been correctly

appreciated and defence of accused about thrusting is believed by the

learned trial Court.   According to learned APP, there is incorrect

appreciation of evidence resulting into unwarranted acquittal. Hence,

he prays to set aside the impugned judgment and order by allowing

the appeal.



On behalf of Respondent/original Accused :

4.      In answer to above, learned counsel for respondent would

support the judgment and order of acquittal by submitting that,

complainant’s story was unworthy of credence both on the point of

demand as well as acceptance. That, moreover, PW3 shadow pancha

was not party to the very demand and acceptance and as such, there
                                                     CrAppeal-779-2006
                                  -4-

was no corroboration to the testimony of PW2 complainant.

Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly refused to act on such

evidence and committed no error whatsoever in acquitting the

accused and he prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.



                SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF EVIDENCE

5.    Re-appreciated the evidence. Prosecution has rested its case in

evidence of five witnesses. Crucial evidence is of PW1 Sanctioning

Authority followed by PW2 complainant and then PW3 shadow

pancha.



6.    PW1 Ashish Sharma is Sanctioning Authority and he in his

evidence at Exhibit 16 has deposed about receiving papers, studying

the same, applying his mind and then according sanction.

      Nothing damaging is brought in his cross-examiantion and

therefore, there was valid sanction.



7.    As regards to demand is concerned, PW2 Sudhir Keshavrao

Patil, complainant, in his testimony at Exhibit 20 in initial part of

examination-in-chief deposed about he to be Administrative Officer of

Adarsha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Osmanabad and said institute

owning 7 acres open land and Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad was in need
                                                      CrAppeal-779-2006
                                  -5-

of 3 acres 20 gunthas land and on settlement, Body members of the

Educational Institution deciding to hand over said land to Zilla

Parishad and on behalf of General Secretary namely K.T.Patil, an

application was tendered with Tahsil office, Osmanabad for issuing

directions for sanctioning mutation entry and to enter names of Zilla

Parishad as well as said educational institution respectively as regards

to the said land.     Complainant claims that in that respect he

approached Talathi and requested him to do the needful, who

suggested him to initially make necessary compliance. Complainant

deposed that, he met said Talathi in February 2003 as well as in

March 2003 and he finally told him that, his part was over and to

further meet Circle Officer and so he claims to have approached

accused, a Circle Officer and requested him to expedite the work of

certification of mutation entry. However, according to him, accused

demanded Rs.5,000/- for the said work and therefore, complainant

told him that, he would consult his Institute and even paid part

amount of Rs.2,000/- immediately and it was agreed to pay

remaining Rs.3,000/- after the work was over, but accused did not

complete the work up to 31-03-2003.

      In paragraph 5 of examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 12-

04-2003 while he was proceeding towards field, he happened to meet

accused at Barshi Naka and at that time, he asked accused about his
                                                     CrAppeal-779-2006
                                  -6-

work and at that time, according to him, accused suggested that, if

remaining Rs.3,000/- is paid, he would grant mutation entry by

putting back dated entry. That, accused told him to contact him at

Barshi Naka with Rs.3,000/- in the afternoon.        Therefore, when

complainant was sure that, accused was giving evasive reply, he

approached ACB and gave complaint Exhibit 22.

      Thereafter, in paragraph 6, he narrated about steps taken

regarding application of anthracene powder, instructions being given

to him as well as shadow pancha. In paragraph 7, he deposed about

he and pancha visiting Barshi Naka at around 04.50 pm but accused

did not arrive till 07.30 p.m. and therefore, he himself claims to have

telephoned accused, who allegedly told him that he would come next

morning.   Therefore, trap was called off that day and they again

returned to ACB office and again on 13-04-2003, he and shadow

pancha reached Barshi Naka at 08.40 a.m., accused came at 10.15

a.m. and he claims that, when he asked accused about his work,

accused asked him about remaining amount and it was duly handed

over which accused accepted in his left hand and retained in his fist

and thereafter, predetermined signal was relayed followed by

apprehension of accused.

      Complainant is extensively crosse-examined initially on the

points of his qualification, he contesting elections, about the School
                                                     CrAppeal-779-2006
                                    -7-

runs by educational institution, about complaints lodged by Shri Datta

Maharaj against him. In further cross-examination, he admitted that

he himself did not find any application with Tahsildar.       He also

denied suggestions which were defence case that accused had told

him that mutation entry cannot be sanctioned as there was no

document of title.

      In paragraph 19 of cross-examination, he admitted that, his first

meeting with accused was in first week of February 2003 and at that

time, 2-3 persons were present in the office of accused. He admitted

that, he did not place on record document in ACB office about initial

payment of Rs.2,000/- being accounted in the record of educational

institution.   He is unable to state      how portion marked “A” is

appearing in his statement. In further cross-examination, he admitted

that it is he who called accused.



8.    PW3 Mehabub Abdul Gani Hannure, shadow pancha, who is

examined at Exhibit 39 also deposed about he visiting ACB office,

being introduced to complainant, hearing his story, signing complaint

Exhibit 22, he and complainant being given necessary instructions. In

paragraph 6, he narrated about accompanying complainant to Barshi

Naka and complainant giving a phone call to accused, who allegedly

told that he would come next day and trap being called off that day.
                                                    CrAppeal-779-2006
                                 -8-

In paragraph Nos.8, he deposed about he again accompanying

complainant to Barshi Naka and there, complainant and accused

exchanging greetings. In paragraph 9 of examination-in-chief itself,

he stated that complainant asked accused about his work, and

thereafter, complainant took out money from right pocket of his pant

and gave it to accused, who accepted money in his left hand. He

claims that, he heard part of the reply given by accused and then

deposed that, he does not remember what was said by accused.

      While under cross-examination, he also admitted about not

having stated portion marked “A”.       In paragraph 17 of cross-

examination, he admitted that, when there was conversation between

accused and complainant, he could not hear it nor he saw amount

being given and accepted.



                   ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

9.    Therefore, on analyzing above discussed evidence, it is clear

that firstly when complainant approached accused has not been stated

by him. He has admitted that, he himself did not give application for

mutation entry. Though he claims to have given Rs.2,000/- as part

payment, there is no corroboration. Infact in cross-examination, he

has admitted that, 2-3 other persons were present with accused at the

relevant time, but none of them are examined. It also appears that,
                                                    CrAppeal-779-2006
                                 -9-

he had made contact with accused during which he learnt that

accused was not coming on agreed day in the afternoon, but CDR is

not placed on record to substantiate the same. Further it appears

that, accused has not called complainant and complainant happened

to meet accused by chance at Barshi Naka i.e. on 12-04-2003. He has

also admitted that, he himself has called accused. His such evidence

shows that, accused did not develop contact and called complainant.

Rather it is other way around and there is nothing to show that there

was telephonic conversation between complainant and accused.



10.   PW3 Hannure, shadow pancha, who is a crucial witness,

though corroborated complainant about they both going on

12-04-2003 at Barshi Naka and accused did not turning up and

therefore, trap being postponed, this witness in paragraph 9       of

examination-in-chief itself has stated that on 13-04-2003 i.e. during

second visit, when accused and complainant met, at that time,

complainant asked accused about his work and thereafter, without

any demand, complainant offered money, which accused accepted.

Further in his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that, he

could not hear the conversation between complainant and accused

and he also did not see that money changed hands. Therefore, there

is no corroboration to the story of prosecution.   Very crucial and
                                                        CrAppeal-779-2006
                                   -10-

independent witness i.e. shadow pancha has apparently not supported

prosecution on the point of demand and acceptance. Resultantly, on

reanalyzing prosecution evidence, though there is valid sanction, case

of prosecution on the vital aspect of demand and acceptance is not

proved beyond reasonable doubt,.



11.   Learned trial Court has correctly appreciated evidence available

on the record and for above reasons, committed no error in refusing

prosecution case and acquitting accused. There being no merits in the

appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, following

order is passed :

                                 ORDER

                    Criminal appeal stands dismissed.




                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



SPT