THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusRAJU S/O. BHAGWAN JADHAV

2026:BHC-AUG:38238


                                                 *1*                       revst125o18 rtf


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1256 OF 2018
                                       IN
                 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.125 OF
                                      2018
                                     WITH
                 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.125 OF
                                      2018

                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                         VERSUS
                                 RAJU BHAGWAN JADHAV.

                                                …
                     Shri Shirish G. Sangle, Addl. GP, for the applicant/ State.
                                                ...


                                    CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                    DATE : 18 August 2026


                P. C. :-

                1.           This application is filed by the State of Maharashtra

                seeking condonation of 66 days delay caused in filing the

                Revision Application against the order dated 07.11.2017 passed

                by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna, below exhibit 5 in Special

                Case (PCA) No.2/2017.


                2.           For the reasons stated in the application, delay is

                condoned. Criminal Application No.1256/2018 stands disposed
                                   *2*                    revst125o18 rtf


of accordingly.


3.           Criminal Revision Application is taken up for

hearing.


4.           The prosecution case, in brief, is that the respondent

herein i.e. accused Raju Jadhav was working as a teacher in

Vinay Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Jalgaon

(Sapkal), Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna. It is alleged that the

complainant Satish Nemane approached him for issuance of a

duplicate Transfer Certificate (T.C.), for which the accused

demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification. The complainant,

therefore, approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on

23.07.2014 and lodged a complaint. The ACB recorded the

conversation and conducted the necessary pre-trap formalities.

On 24.07.2014, a trap was laid and the complainant paid

Rs.500/- to the accused, who allegedly accepted the amount. The

tainted currency was immediately recovered from the accused.

The ACB also seized the affidavit, photocopy of the original

T.C., duplicate T.C. and other relevant documents. Statements of

the Principal and Clerk of the school were recorded and, after

completion    of   investigation    and   obtaining   sanction     for
                                *3*                      revst125o18 rtf


prosecution, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case is registered as

Special Case (PCA) No.2/2017 before the learned Special Judge,

Jalna.


5.          The respondent/ accused filed an application

exhibit-5 for discharge. The contention of the accused was that

he was working in the school, which is non grant in aid school.

The Management of the school itself, by issuing appropriate

resolution, has authorized the accused to collect fees and charges

for issuing a school leaving certificate. Therefore, the accused

has committed no illegality by accepting Rs.500/- from the

complainant and therefore, that amount cannot be considered as

bribe amount. As such, the respondent/ accused be discharge

from the alleged offences.


6.          The learned Special Judge, by impugned order dated

07.11.2017, allowed the application and discharged the accused

from offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special

Judge, while considering the material on record, held that even
                                   *4*                   revst125o18 rtf


assuming that the respondent was a public servant, the material

did not prima facie establish that the amount of Rs.500/- received

by him was illegal gratification, as the amount was collected

pursuant to the directions of the school management towards

issuance of duplicate T.C.The Headmaster of the school has also

supported the contention of the accused and the Management of

the school is also supporting the stand of the accused and clearly

stated that they directed the accused to collect fees for issuing

duplicate TC.


7.           Learned APP appearing for the applicant/ State

submits that learned Special Judge has committed grave error in

discharging the accused. He submits that at the initial stage of

framing of charge, the Court is not concerned with the proof, but

with strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence

which if put to trial, could prove him guilty. The Court is

required to see that material on record and the facts would be

compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. Final test of

guilt is not to be applied at this stage.


8.           Learned APP further submits that papers of

investigation prima facie show that there is demand and
                                *5*                      revst125o18 rtf


acceptance of bribe by the accused. Therefore, burden is on the

defence to rebut presumption laid down under Section 20 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act by leading cogent evidence.

Learned Special Judge ought not to have given unnecessary

importance to the documents produced by the defence, which

were yet to be proved. Learned Special Judge has committed

grave error while discharging the accused. Learned APP,

therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed

and set aside.


9.           With the help of learned APP, I have gone through

the material on record and the impugned order. Perusal of the

charge-sheet discloses that the accused was working as an

Assistant Teacher in private school, which is being run on

‘permanent no-grant aid’ basis. The said school is run by

Matoshri Bhagubai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal situated at village

Jalgaon (Sapkal), Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna. Thus, the

accused is employee of the said Management. The prosecution

claims that the accused was working on the post of Assistant

Teacher in secondary school run by the said Management,

therefore, he is public servant in pursuance of definition under
                               *6*                     revst125o18 rtf


Section 2(c) of the PC Act. The prosecution, therefore, claims

that the amount of Rs.500/- accepted by the accused from the

complainant is bribe amount and therefore, the demand and

acceptance of bribe is established. In view of the charge of the

prosecution, it is required to see that whether, the accused is

really a public servant and whether, the demanded amount can be

termed as bribe amount, considering the provisions of the PC

Act.


10.         According to the accused, at the relevant point of

time, he was working on unaided division of the school meaning

thereby, the said school is not receiving any grant from the

Government. As such, the said school is totally dependent upon

donations and fees received from public. It has come on record

that the Management has passed the resolution thereby, fixing

amount of Rs.500/- as fees for issuing duplicate TC. The

Headmaster of the school gave an order to the accused for

issuing/ preparing duplicate TC. According to the accused, since

the Managing Committee of the school is the appointing and

removing authority of the accused, therefore, it is competent

authority within the meaning of Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act.
                                 *7*                     revst125o18 rtf


The competent authority i.e. managing committee of the school

has refused to grant sanction in this case and replied to the Anti

Corruption Bureau that the accused was authorized to take fees

as per the directions of the managing committee and therefore, he

was not collecting any bribe amount. Therefore, the managing

committee did not accord sanction.


11.         After    rejecting    to   accord     sanction,       the

Superintendent of Police, ACB, again wrote the letter to the

Managing Committee of the school, however, the Managing

Committee stood firm on its stand. It is brought on record that

the School Education Department, Government of Maharashtra,

has issued the circular dated 05.11.2015 and thereby, designated

the Director of Education, Pune as the competent authority for all

teachers serving in private schools for all purposes. According to

the prosecution, the said Director of Education has accorded

sanction for prosecution of the accused on 07.12.2016. After

obtaining sanction, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the

accused. However, it is pertinent to note here that the competent

authority came to be designated vide circular dated 05.11.2015

whereas, the incident of trap of bride has taken place on
                                 *8*                       revst125o18 rtf


24.07.2014. Thus, on 24.07.2014, the competent authority was

not entitled to accord sanction for prosecution.


12.          As stated earlier, the respondent/ accused was

working in an unaided private school and he was following

orders of the managing committee of the school. Therefore, in

my view, the alleged demand of Rs.500/- for issuing duplicate

TC cannot be considered as bribe. The respondent/ accused was

discharging his duties as per the directions given by the school

management and his superiors and, therefore, his act cannot be

said to fall within the meaning of offence under Sections 7, 13(1)

(d)and 13(2) of the PC Act.


13.          On the aspect of according sanction, as already

discussed herein above, the Director of Education, Pune, was

designated   as   competent     authority   vide   circular     dated

05.11.2015. However, the said circular cannot be made

applicable with retrospective effect as the incident in question

took place prior to issuance of the said circular. Moreover,

whether the said competent authority is also the competent

authority for teachers, who are working in private unaided

schools, or not, is another aspect which this Court, in the peculiar
                                  *9*                       revst125o18 rtf


facts of this case, would not want to go into detail. However, the

fact remains that the demand made by the accused cannot be

termed as bribe amount.


14.          On cumulative consideration of the material placed

on record, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge has not

committed any patent illegality or perversity in extending the

benefit of discharge to the respondent. The resolution of the

school management authorising collection of Rs.500/- towards

issuance of duplicate T.C., the subsequent direction of the

Principal to the respondent to collect the said amount and the

stand consistently taken by the Management that the amount was

collected towards school fees, prima facie provide plausible and

lawful explanation for receipt of the said amount. In such

circumstances, the material on record does not disclose, at the

threshold, a clear and unimpeachable case that the respondent

demanded or accepted Rs.500/- as illegal gratification. Mere

recovery of the amount, without establishing that it was received

as illegal gratification, cannot by itself constitute sufficient basis

to compel the respondent to face the prosecution. The learned

Special Judge has, therefore, committed no jurisdictional error or
                                       *10*                revst125o18 rtf


      perversity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

      Consequently, the impugned order discharging the respondent

      deserves to be maintained. Hence, the Criminal Revision

      Application is dismissed.




kps                               ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )