MUKUND ANANTRAO RANNAVARE(ASHTIKAR)versusTHE STATE OF MAH

2026:BHC-AUG:43410


                                             *1*                 apeal81o05


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.81 OF 2005

                Mukund s/o Anantrao Rannavare (Ashtikar),
                Age : 38 years, Occu. Service,
                R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Sailu,
                Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.
                                                  ...APPELLANT
                                                  (Orig. accused)

                      -VERSUS-

                The State of Maharashtra.
                                                    ...RESPONDENT

                                              …
                Shri Nilesh S. Ghanekar, advocate h/f Shri R.R. Imale and Shri
                S.P. Chapalgaonkar, Advocates for the appellant.
                Shri C.V. Bhadane, APP for the respondent/ State.
                                              …

                                  CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.


                                  Reserved on : 11 September 2026

                                  Pronounced on : 24 September 2026


                JUDGMENT :-

                1.          The appellant/ accused is challenging the judgment

                and order dated 29.01.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge,

                Parbhani, in Special Case No.12 of 2000, whereby the appellant

                came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7
                                *2*                   apeal81o05


of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and was sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three

months. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default,

to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the

sentences were directed to run concurrently.


2.           The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-


      (a)    The appellant was working as a Talathi at Sailu,

Taluka Sailu. The complainant is PW-2, namely, Shaikh Babar

Shaikh Habib. One Mohammad Shiraz Mohammad Ashraf was

joint owner of agricultural land bearing Gut No.50 along with his

brother, namely, Mohammad Shafi Mohammad Ashraf. Since the

said Mohammad Shiraz was not able to cultivate the land

properly due to his service in the Police Department, he had

given the said land to PW-2 Shaikh Babar, the complainant, for

cultivation on contract basis, one year prior to the incident.


      (b)    A dispute arose between Mohammad Shiraz and
                               *3*                  apeal81o05


Mohammad Shafi. Therefore, Mohammad Shiraz filed a suit

before the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sailu, and

obtained an injunction. He also filed an application at Police

Station, Sailu, against Mohammad Shafi, seeking restraint

against Mohammad Shafi from obstructing the peaceful

possession and enjoyment of Mohammad Shiraz. The said

Mohammad Shafi allegedly got the name of Mohammad Shiraz

deleted from the record of land bearing Gut No. 50 in collusion

with the Tahsildar, Sailu. The name of Mohammad Shiraz was

recorded in the cultivation column of land bearing Gut No. 50 up

to 10.03.2000. However, on 16.03.2000, the name of Mohammad

Shiraz came to be deleted. Therefore, Mohammad Shiraz

intended to file a suit against his brother Mohammad Shafi.

Hence, he directed PW-2, the complainant, who was his brother-

in-law, to collect the 7/12 extract for that year and the mutation

extract.


      (c)   Accordingly, PW-2 Shaikh Babar, the complainant,

approached the appellant, who was working as the Talathi of

Sailu Sajja. On 13.06.2000, the complainant met the appellant

and demanded 7/12 extracts for the period from 1985 to 2000. He
                               *4*                   apeal81o05


also demanded the extracts of the mutation entries in respect of

the suit land. It is alleged that the appellant demanded Rs.1,000/-

for issuing copies of the 7/12 extracts and mutation entries. As

PW-2 Shaikh Babar expressed his inability to pay the said

amount, he requested the appellant to reduce the amount. After

negotiation, the appellant agreed to issue the copies on receiving

an amount of Rs.500/-. The appellant allegedly insisted that the

amount be paid on the very same day. PW-2 Shaikh Babar was

having Rs.300/-, therefore, he paid Rs.300/- to the appellant and

assured him that the balance amount would be paid later, at the

time of collecting the copies of the revenue record. The appellant

told PW-2 that he would prepare the 7/12 extracts and mutation

entries and would ask him to collect the said copies after

payment of the balance amount.


      (d)   Since PW-2, the complainant, was not willing to pay

the bribe amount to the appellant, he approached the ACB Office

at Parbhani on 13.06.2000. His complaint came to be recorded by

the ACB authorities. PW-4 Manik Perke, however, instructed the

complainant to visit the ACB Office again on 14.06.2000.


      (e)   On 14.06.2000, necessary formalities regarding
                              *5*                  apeal81o05


calling the panch witnesses and demonstration of anthracene

powder were completed. Necessary instructions were given to the

trapping party by the ACB Officer. Accordingly, as per his

directions, PW-2 the complainant and PW-1 Panch Witness

Shaikh Sabu Miya approached the office of the appellant,

situated in a godown at Sailu, at about 10.00 a.m. According to

the complainant, after giving the copies of the 7/12 extract and

mutation entries, the accused demanded the bribe amount from

him. PW-2 Shaikh Babar then paid the amount of Rs.200/- to the

accused, and the accused allegedly accepted the same.

Accordingly, PW-2 gave the predetermined signal. Thereafter, the

police rushed to the Tehsil Office and apprehended the accused

red-handed. The tainted currency notes came to be recovered.

Necessary formalities regarding seizure of the currency notes and

the shirt of the accused were completed. Thereafter, PW-4 Manik

Perke lodged the complaint against the accused at the Police

Station, which came to be registered as C.R. No. 3010 of 2000.


      (f)   PW-4 IO Shri Perke conducted the investigation,

arrested the accused on the very same date and collected the

necessary documents regarding his appointment, etc. Thereafter,
                               *6*                  apeal81o05


sanction came to be obtained from the competent authority and

accordingly, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused

before the Court on 03.11.2000. The charge came to be framed

against the appellant-accused vide Exhibit 7. The accused

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.


      (g)   The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove the

charges against the appellant. PW-1 Shaikh Sabu Shaikh Miya is

the panch witness at Exhibit 20. PW-2 Shaikh Babar Shaikh

Habib is the complainant at Exhibit 27. PW-3 Tulshiram Bhale is

an eyewitness at Exhibit 34, who has been declared hostile. PW-4

Manik Perke is the Investigating Officer at Exhibit 37. PW-5

Annasaheb Shinde is at Exhibit 47, who had issued the sanction

order. PW-6 Gopal Kulkarni is at Exhibit 61, who had prepared

the map of the scene of the office. One Rajendra Patodkar came

to be examined by the defence as a defence witness at Exhibit 69.


      (h)   After recording the evidence and hearing the parties,

the learned Special Judge, Parbhani, vide the impugned judgment

and order dated 29.01.2005 convicted and sentenced the

appellant as mentioned in foregoing paragraph.


3.          The learned advocate Shri Ghanekar appearing on
                               *7*                   apeal81o05


behalf of the appellant/ accused submitted that, if the testimony

of the witnesses is perused, it does not establish that the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. He submitted that there was no demand-

verification panchnama and that a direct trap was laid. According

to him, this casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.


4.           Shri Ghanekar further submitted that, as regards

payment of the bribe amount, there is no corroboration as to

whether the amount was paid outside the cabin or inside the

cabin. It was also pointed out that, when the amount of Rs.200/-

was about to be paid, the appellant/ accused had not demanded

the said amount. The appellant had issued the 7/12 extracts and

the revenue documents and handed them over to the complainant.

Thereafter, the complainant paid the amount without there being

any demand by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant cannot be

held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)

r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the

absence of strong evidence regarding demand, acceptance,

recovery and valid sanction.


5.           Shri   Ghanekar     further   submitted        that   the
                               *8*                  apeal81o05


complainant had lodged the complaint against the appellant due

to grudge against him on the ground that the appellant was

helping the other opponent litigants in civil suit. The evidence of

PW-1, the panch witness, discloses that there is no corroboration

regarding the spot panchanama about payment i.e. whether the

payment was made inside or outside the cabin. According to the

learned advocate, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument

that the appellant had accepted the amount, the said amount was

towards payment of cess of the Revenue Department, which was

payable by Mohammad Shiraz. PW-5 (Annasaheb Shinde), who

was working as the Deputy Collector, Sailu and who is

sanctioning authority, has admitted that fees of Rs.2/- per year is

to be charged for issuing 7/12 extract.


6.           Shri Ghanekar has invited attention of this Court to

the evidence of PW-2 complainant and submitted that there is

also improvement in the deposition of the complainant inasmuch

as he had not stated before the ACB authorities, while recording

the complaint and his statement, that he had approached the

appellant on 13.06.2000. He had stated before the ACB

authorities that he had paid an amount of Rs.300/- to the assistant
                               *9*                  apeal81o05


of the appellant. Thereafter, there is also an omission regarding

the statement made to the police that the appellant had enquired

with him whether his work had been done when he demanded the

7/12 extract. Thus, according to learned counsel for the appellant,

there are major discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant

and the prosecution witnesses. He, therefore, submitted that the

conviction cannot be based upon such quality of evidence.

According to him, the prosecution was required to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt by establishing that there was a demand

for the bribe amount and subsequent acceptance thereof. This fact

in issue can be proved either by direct evidence, which may be in

the nature of oral evidence, or by documentary evidence.


7.          Shri Ghanekar further submitted that the learned

Special Judge committed grave error by convicting the appellant

as it has not properly appreciated evidence brought on record.

The prosecution has virtually failed to prove that the demand is

made by the appellant and mere acceptance of amount is not

sufficient to prove the demand. The prosecution witnesses have

not corroborated each other at the time of recording their

evidence. As such, learned advocate submitted that the
                               *10*                  apeal81o05


prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the appellant beyond all

reasonable doubt. The appeal needs to be allowed and the

appellant be acquitted.


8.          Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the

submissions of learned advocate for the appellant. According to

the learned APP, the statements of witnesses proved the guilt of

the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, their

evidence cannot be discarded. The learned APP has strenuously

supported the impugned judgment and order passed by learned

Special Judge. According to him, learned Special Judge after

analyzing evidence brought on record in proper perspective, has

rightly delivered the impugned judgment and order and has

rightly convicted the appellant. There is no scope for interference

in the impugned judgment. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of

the present appeal.


9.          After hearing the submissions of learned advocates

and with their assistance, after going through evidence on record

carefully, it is apparent that the witnesses have not supported

each other on the point of demand. The evidence of PW-2

complainant (Shaikh Babar) regarding the alleged demand is not
                               *11*                 apeal81o05


consistent with his earlier statement and there are material

omissions in his evidence on the point of demand. The evidence

of panch witness PW-1 (Shaikh Miya) does not satisfactorily

cure this material deficiency. The evidence led by the

prosecution, when considered as a whole, does not establish the

factum of demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable

doubt. The learned advocate for the appellant has rightly placed

reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.

Jayaraj vs. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 and V. Sejappa vs.

State, (2016) 12 SCC 150, to submit that the proof of demand is

an indispensable ingredient of the offence under Section 7 and in

the absence of proof of demand, the question of acceptance does

not arise. In the present case, the allegation of demand solely

rests on the testimony of the complainant and there is no

corroboration from independent witnesses. PW-3 panch witness

turned hostile. Therefore, there is no independent evidence on

record to prove that the appellant demanded the amount of

Rs.200/-. The evidence of defence witness Rajendra Patodkar

gives support to the explanation given by the appellant/ accused.


10.         On careful appreciation of the evidence, this Court
                                *12*                 apeal81o05


finds that there is inconsistency about where the amount was

paid whether, it was inside the cabin or outside the cabin. As per

the spot panchanama, the amount was allegedly paid outside the

cabin, however, there is no corroboration in the evidence of

panch witnesses about this fact. It is part of evidence that at the

time of paying Rs.200/- there was no demand by the appellant

and when the appellant issued the revenue documents, the

complainant paid voluntarily. There is admission given by the

complainant in his evidence that the amount was due from

Mohammad Shiraj.


11.         In   this   case,   even    assuming    the      physical

receipt/recovery of the amount is established, the prosecution has

failed to establish that the amount was received as illegal

gratification pursuant to demand made by the appellant. 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

Prevention of Corruption Act, the proof of demand of illegal

gratification is absolutely necessary as it is sine qua non of the

offence. If the prosecution fails to prove this demand of illegal
                               *13*                  apeal81o05


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 Prevention of Corruption 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 appellant/accused would not entail his conviction for

the said offences.


12.          Considering the evidence brought on record, this

Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond

reasonable doubt, that the appellant had demanded Rs.200/- from

the complainant as illegal gratification. The alleged demand
                               *14*                 apeal81o05


made immediately prior to the trap is not satisfactorily

established through the testimony of PW-2 complainant. The

evidence of panch witnesses also does not inspire confidence so

as to cure the deficiency in the prosecution case about demand

and acceptance. The prosecution was required to prove the nexus

between the amount allegedly received and the demand of illegal

gratification. Since the foundational fact of demand has not been

proved beyond reasonable doubt, the alleged acceptance of the

amount as bribe also becomes doubtful. Consequently, the

benefit of such doubt must go to the appellant.


13.         It is well settled that the statutory presumption under

Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can arise only

upon proof of the two basic facts in issue, namely, demand and

acceptance of illegal gratification in case under Section 7 of the

Act. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the

prosecution has failed to establish the foundational facts

necessary for drawing such presumption. Consequently, the

statutory presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked. The

prosecution has failed to establish the demand of illegal

gratification by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is well
                                *15*                 apeal81o05


settled that mere recovery of currency notes, in the absence of

proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, is

insufficient to sustain conviction.


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

the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove

beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded illegal

gratification from the complainant and that the amount allegedly

received by him was accepted as illegal gratification pursuant to

such demand. 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. The

appellant is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the following order is passed:


                              ORDER
(i)     The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

(ii)    The judgment and order dated 29.01.2005 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Parbhani, in Special Case No.12 of 2000,
convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences
punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is
quashed and set aside.

(iii)   The appellant/accused is acquitted of the offences with
                                       *16*                  apeal81o05


      which he was charged.

      (iv)     The appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled and
      the surety, if any, stands discharged.

      (v)      The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the appellant.

      (vi)     The record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
      Court.




kps                                     (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)