PRADIP KAKASAHEB SATHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38642


                                                                    Cri-Apln-3978-2025.odt




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3978 OF 2025
                                                IN
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 534 OF 2025
                                    PRADIP KAKASAHEB SATHE
                                              VERSUS
                                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                 .…
                 Mr. Abhijit S. More, Advocate for Applicant
                 Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for Respondent – State
                                                 .…

                                      CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                           RESERVED ON : August 21, 2026
                        PRONOUNCED ON : August 27, 2026
                 O R D E R :-

                 1.            The applicant, who stood convicted by learned Special

                 Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (ACB) No.03 of 2017 vide

                 judgment and order dated 09.07.2025, prays for stay to the

                 conviction.

                 2.            Learned counsel for applicant pointed out that, the

                 applicant was tried vide Special Case (ACB) No.03 of 2017, for

                 offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the

                 Prevention of Corruption Act.



                                                                                    1 of 4
                                   (( 2 ))            Cri-Apln-3978-2025




3.          That, upon complete appreciation of the evidence,

conviction has been recorded. That, the applicant was on bail during

the trial. He further submitted that the sentence has already been

suspended by this Court. That, the applicant was in service but came

to be terminated during the pendency of the appeal. It is submitted

that accused No. 2, who had accepted the amount, has already been

acquitted by this Court. There is no evidence of a demand for bribe.

That, the applicant, being the sole breadwinner of the family, has

urged that the relief of suspension of conviction be granted.

4.          Learned APP strongly opposed the application on the

ground that the conviction cannot be suspended, as this is not one of

the rarest of rare cases. Moreover, according to him, there is sufficient

evidence regarding both, the demand and acceptance. Therefore,

since the conviction has been recorded upon a complete re-

appreciation of the evidence, the application is opposed.

5.          Heard. Perused the papers. The applicant hereby seeks

suspension of conviction recorded by learned trial Judge by order

dated 09.07.2025 i.e. for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read

with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Present applicant

and accused No.2 both were tried vide Special Case (ACB) No.3 of

                                                                           2 of 4
                                  (( 3 ))          Cri-Apln-3978-2025




2017. Admittedly, present applicant is arraigned as accused No.1.

There is no dispute that accused No.2 Naveenkumar Irlawar has been

acquitted by trial Court. The brief snapshot of the prosecution case

before the trial Court is that complainant’s brother had handed over

complainant’s certain documents for obtaining new electricity

connection standing in the name of sister in law Laxmi Kanade.

Accordingly he filed an application on 05.01.2017 by visiting the

office of Mahavitaran. To do the needful, it is alleged that applicant

demanded Rs.7,000/- bribe and after negotiations, the figure was

brought down to Rs.6,000/-. But, as complainant Yogesh was not

willing to pay bribe, he approached the ACB and gave complaint,

which was duly entertained by arranging and planning trap. Shadow

punch was engaged to accompany complainant and they both were

given necessary instructions. Complainant and shadow punch both

approached accused and after the trap was successful, both accused

were charge-sheeted and tried vide above special case.

6.          Now, suspension of conviction is urged primarily on the

ground that the very person who accepted the bribe has already been

acquitted. The applicant has been suspended from service and is the

sole breadwinner of his family.

                                                                        3 of 4
                                   (( 4 ))           Cri-Apln-3978-2025




7.          The Hon’ble Apex Court has, time and again, held that

the Court should be slow in staying a conviction. It is only in rare and

exceptional cases, where a prima facie case to that effect is made out,

that a stay of conviction can be granted. The law to this extent is

explicitly laid down in the cases of (1) K. C. Sareen Vs. C.B.I.,

Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584, (2) Union of India Vs. Atar Singh and

another, (2003) 12 SCC 434 and (3) State of Maharashtra Vs.

Gajanan and another, (2003) 12 SCC 432.

8.          Here, the stay of conviction is primarily sought on the

ground that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of the family and

has been terminated from service. These, however, are not good

grounds for staying the conviction. More particularly, the Trial Court

has on complete appreciation of guilt, has found that a case is made

out against the present applicant. No case or good ground is made out

on merits. Therefore, following order is passed:-

                               ORDER

            Application is rejected.


                                       [ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ]
SMS




                                                                          4 of 4