High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 2013IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2013The State of Maharashtra,Through Dy.S.P.. Anti Corruption Bureau,Jalgaon. ….Appellant Versus1.Pandurang Vishram Arke Age : 50 yrs.2.Shantaram Lotan PatilAge : 30 yrs.3.Pradeep Jagannath Patil(Deceased)All R/o. Parola, Tq.Parola, Dist.Jalgaon.…..Respondents (Ori. Accused) …..Mr.N.D.Batule, APP for Appellant. Mr.Rameshwar M.Bhagwat h/f. Mr.Ganesh P. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent no.1.Mr. Nasim R. Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent no.2.….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 12 AUGUST, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 11 SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT :- 1.Instant appeal by State seeks to challenge judgment and orderof acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner inSpecial Case No.1 of 2009 by which respondents stood acquittedfrom charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of thePrevention of Corruption Act. {2} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 2013BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2. In nutshell, prosecution was launched against accusedrespondents for above charges on allegations that, accused nos.1 and2 approached complainant PW1 Prakash on 03-10-2006 andinformed him about receipt of complaint against him for carrying onthe profession of Artificial Inseminator and veterinary Doctorrespectively and that due to wrong medication, even live stock havedied and therefore, complaint is to be registered and to desist fromlodging report, it is the case of prosecution that there was demand ofRs.2,000/-, but on negotiations, it was reduced to Rs.1,000/- and itwas further reduced to Rs.800/-. On receipt of report about demandof bribe, ACB authorities planned raid by constituting raiding party.PW1 Complainant and PW2 shadow pancha were given necessaryinstructions and the duo approached accused persons, theydemanded bribe and further directed complainant to pay the same toaccused no.3 on their behalf. Accused no.3 was apprehended withtainted currency after relay of predetermined signal. PW3Investigating Officer lodged report, carried out investigation,completed the same, sought sanction to prosecute and after obtainingthe same, chargesheeted both respondents for above charges. {3} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 20133.Trial was conducted during which prosecution adducedevidence of PW1 Prakash, complainant, PW2 Vinod, shadow pancha,PW3 Dattatraya Ghuge, Investigating Officer. Defence of accused was of false implication and about nodemand of bribe raised and neither acceptance of bribe. On appreciation of available evidence, learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Amalner, reached to a finding that prosecution failedto bring home the charges and thereby acquitted the accused.Hence, the instant appeal. SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of appellant State :4. Learned APP apprised this Court about the factual backgroundof the case as narrated above and would submit that both accusednos.1 and 2 had approached complainant and had demanded bribefor not registering complaint against him. There were negotiationson bribe amount and finally accused persons had agreed to acceptRs.1,000/-, which was further reduced to Rs.800/-. Learned APPpointed out that, prompt report to that extent was lodged by PW1Prakash. Thereafter, ACB authorities summoned independentPanchas and issued necessary instructions and gave necessary {4} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 2013demonstration. That, pre-trap panchanama was drawn. 5.Learned APP further pointed out that PW1 complainant andPW2 shadow pancha had been to the office of accused. Bothwitnesses have deposed about approaching accused in their officeand they taking complainant and pancha outside the office forhanding over the bribe. Learned APP pointed out that accused no.2was directed by accused no.1 to accept whatever amount is given.That, accused no.2 had directed complainant to pay amount toaccused no.3, who was a Pan Stall owner and was acting at theinstance of both accused nos.1 and 2. Learned APP pointed out that,as per directions of accused no.2, tainted currency was given toaccused no.3 and he accepted the same. That, accused no.3 wasapprehended raid handed. Thus, according to learned APP, trap wassuccessful. He pointed out that, both aspects of demand andacceptance were existing in the evidence of PW1 complainant as wellas PW2 shadow pancha. That, their evidence to that extent had goneunchallenged in the cross-examination. However, according to him,in spite of such evidence, learned trial Court has erred in holding thatdemand itself was not proved. Learned APP pointed out that, oninstructions of accused no.2, PW1 complainant had paid tainted
Legal Reasoning
{5} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 2013currency to accused no.3, who accepted on behalf of accusedpersons. Therefore, charges were cogently proved. Learned APPtook this Court through the impugned judgment and submits thatthere is erroneous appreciation of evidence. He submitted that PW1complainant and PW2 shadow pancha were consistent, however,such crucial aspect has not been taken into account and hence,learned APP questions the maintainability and sustainability of thejudgment and urges to allow the appeal by overturning the impugnedjudgment.On behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 :6. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned counsel forrespondent no.2 pointed out that prosecution has miserably failed toprove their case. That, demand itself has not been cogently provedand it is evident from the testimony of very complainant as well asshadow pancha. It is pointed out that even there is no acceptance ofany amount by either of the accused nos.1 and 2 as acceptance ofamount is by accused no.3, who is already dead. It is pointed outthat, there is nothing to suggest that accused no.3 was acting at theinstance of accused no.1 and 2. Therefore, for all above reasons, it issubmitted that prosecution has miserably failed and as such there isno illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal. {6} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 2013 EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT7.In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of inall three witnesses. Sum and substance of their evidence is as under :PW1 Prakash Tapiram Patil is complainant. At exh.41, hedeposed as under : “I was serving as a Artificial inseminator and First Aid service in selfemployment scheme in Milk Union, Jalgaon from 2001 to 2008. I knowaccused No. 1 and 2. Accused No.1 Pandurang Arke was working as AnimalHusbandry Dairy Development and Fisheris Officer at Tal. Parola andaccused No. 2 Shantaram Lotan Patil was serving as a Animal Husbandrysupervisor, PS. Parola The accused had come on that day to make inquiry on account ofgiving complaint by gramin Patrakar against me. Accused told me that youare doing animal husbandry business without having valid and propereducation. I told to accused that I have got completed diploma certificateand serving on behalf of Milk Federation Jalgaon. Accused told me you aredoing animal husbandry your name should be register recorded and I havenot recorded my name registration. However, Milk Federation Jalgaon hasgiven me permission for doing the said business without registration of myname. Ad registration of 10 my name for doing the business my nameregistration is not necessary as per the Milk Federation Jalgaon. Accusedtold me that if he gave report against you in police station then police mayarrest you for registration of the offence. I told to them that I am doing mylegal work and you do not do anything against me. However, the accuseddemanded Rs. 2000/- saying that we will save you. I told to accused thatRs. 2000/- is more therefore, reduce it, then they said give Rs. 1000/-. Itold both the accused I will pay withing 2 or 3 days. Thereafter bothaccused went away. On 5.10.2006 I went to PS. Parola for my personal work. The {7} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 2013accused No. 2 Shri. Patil met with me and he asked to bring money. I toldhim that I could not make arrangement of money and I will pay within 2 to3 days. Therefore, accused No. 2 told me that you may bring money withoutfail till 7.10.2006 otherwise responsibility will be casted on you. I did notpay money to accused. Therefore, I went to the office of Anti CorruptionBureau Jalgaon. Then I signed on my complaint. Thereafter PI Ghuge ofA.C.P. Jalgoan signed on it. Now shown to me my complaint, contentstherein true and correct, it bears my signature I identify it. It is at Exh. 42.” PW2 Vinod Ramesh Sonawane is shadow pancha. At exh.46,he deposed as under : “On 7/10/2006, we went to office of A.C.B., Jalgaon. Prakash Patil -complainant was present there and Shri. Sonar made introduction witheach other. Prakash Patil narrated his oral complaint in our presence. Shri.Sonar told about written complaint of Prakash Patil. I read the same. TheComplainant's written complaint and oral complaint of complainant wastallied. Thereafter, we panchas signed on Ex. 42. After reaching Parola we halted the government vehicle onBhadgaon road. We got down of the vehicle. Sonar again gave instructions.I myself and the complainant were directed to proceed on foot to Parolapanchayat samiti office and accordingly the complainant and I myselfproceeded to Parola Panchayat Samiti office. After reaching the office ofaccused, complainant greeted accused No. 1 by saying, "Namaskar R.K.Saheb." R.K., the accused No. 1 was sitting over a chair and behind himone Shantaram Patil, the accused No. 2 was sititng over another chair. Boththe accused are present today in the court. Thereafter, the accused No. 1asked asked the complainant as to what happened 20 about his work,complainant told that he has no complete money. Then the accused No. 1R.K., told him that though the sum is not complete he can tender it to theaccused No. 2 i.e. Shantaram Paril. Thereafter we were proceeding towardsShantaram, by that time, Shantaram stood from his chair and gave signal toaccused No. 1 and thereby asked him to come outside of the office. {8} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 2013Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 and 2 proceeded outside the office and then Imyself and complainant followed them. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 crossedthe highway and stood near Paan stall. The said Paan stall was having tea-stall. I myself and the complainant went near both of them. Thereafter,accused No. 2 went behind the Paan stall and from there he came near uson motorcycle. Accused No.1 sat over his motorcycle and thereafter both ofthem proceeded towards Dhule. Thereafter we waited for them for 10minutes. After 10 minutes they returned from from Dhule road. Both ofthem sat in Shyamsunder lodge which in adjacent to the Paan stall. AccusedNo. 1 was sitting over a bench and accused No. 2 was standing close to him.Accused No. 1 thereafter gave signal to us and called us insideShyamsunder lodge. Accused No. 1 instructed accused No. 2 to acceptwhatever money is there though it is not complete. Thereafter accused No.2 went outside side Shyamsunder lodge and therefore, complainant and Imyself followed him. He halted near the Paan stall. We also went close tohim. There was talk between complainant and accused No. 2. Accused No. 2asked the complainant as to how much money he has brought. Thecomplainant told that he has brought Rs. 800. Thereafter, the complainantremoved sum of Rs. 800 from his pocket. Upon this, the accused No. 2 toldthe 10 complainant to handover the money to the person who is sitting overthe Paan stall. Thereafter, the complainant handedover the sum to theperson who was pointed out by the accused No.2, who was running thePaan stall. Said owner of Paan stall counted the said notes and kept in hispant's watch-pocket. Thereafter the complainant gave predetermined signalby scratching his head to the raiding party indicating that the money isaccepted. Upon giving the signal, raiding party along with panch No. 2came near the Paan stall and inquired with me as to whether money isdemanded and accepted to which I told the raiding party members that theaccused No. 2 directed to handover the money to the owner of the Paanstall and accordingly the owner of the Paan stall has accepted the moneyfrom the complainant. At that time, accused No. 2 was about to run. Themembers of raiding party nabbed him. They also nabbed the Paan stallowner.” {9} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 2013PW3 Dattatraya Karbhari Ghuge is Investigating Officer. Hisevidence is at exh.53. ANALYSIS 8. In view of charge, it is incumbent upon prosecution to establishthat there is demand i.e. by accused persons followed by acceptance.As usual evidence of PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha iscrucial. It is settled legal position that complainant being interestedwitness, there has to be sufficient corroboration from independentcorner i.e. shadow pancha, who is suppose to be in the company ofcomplainant at the time of both demand as well as acceptance. 9.In brief, case of the prosecution and complainant is that bothaccused, who were working in Animal Husbandry and FisheriesDepartment, demanded illegal gratification to desist from lodgingreport against complainant, who allegedly, without requisitequalification, was professing as Veterinary Doctor. It is further casethat demand was of Rs.2,000/-, but subsequently it was reduced toRs.1,000/- and further it was reduced to Rs.800/-. As complainantwas not willing to pay bribe, he lodged report, resulting intoplanning and execution of trap. {10} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 201310.Re-appreciated the entire evidence i.e. of both PW1 Prakash,complainant and PW2 Vinod, shadow pancha, who are examined atexh.41 and exh.46 respectively. Their examination-in-chief is alreadyreproduced for ready reference. It is noticed that, according tocomplainant, on 03-10-2006, both accused visited their village andinformed complainant about receipt of complaint against him. It ispertinent to note that, there are two accused, however, general andomnibus allegations are levelled that both accused questioned himand they both demanded bribe i.e. in chorus. Complainant has notstated, who amongst the two accused, said what and who bargained.Allegations of demand are thus attributed to both accused at one andthe same time. 11.On carefully gong through evidence of PW1 Prakash,complainant and PW2 Vinod, shadow pancha, as pointed out bylearned counsel by respondents, and as held by learned trial Court,the sequence of events narrated by both are not consistent since theirvisit to office of accused persons. According to complainant PW1Prakash, in the office, on the relevant day, both accused nos.1 and 2made gestures to come out of the office. Accordingly, they all cameto a Pan Stall, thereafter, both accused proceeded on motorcycle {11} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 2013towards Dhule side and returned after one hour i.e. near the PanStall and thereafter, it is alleged that both accused went inside ShyamSundar Lodge and PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha bothfollowed them. It is to be noted that they were not called as PW1Prakash does not depose to that extent. According to PW1 Prakash,accused no.1 told accused no.2 that whatever complainant wouldgive take it and thereafter, accused no.2 asked complainant to comeout of the lodge and thereafter, accused no.2 allegedly told oneperson sitting in the Pan Stall that whatever he would give, the PanStall owner should accept and accordingly, amount was paid by PW1complainant to Pan Stall owner. 12.If we visit evidence of shadow pancha PW2 Vinod on abovecount, we find him stating that after reaching the office of accused,accused no.1 asked PW1 complainant as to what happened about hiswork, upon which PW1 complainant allegedly told that he does nothave complete money, but still accused no.1 told that even thoughsum is not complete, he can tender it to accused no.2. The above isnot the version of PW1 complainant. Such is not the manner ofsequence of conversation between accused no.1 and PW1complainant. According to PW2 shadow pancha, after reaching the {12} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 2013office, accused no.2 stood up from the chair and gave signal toaccused no.1 and asked him to come out and after both accusednos.1 and 2 went out of the office, thereafter, this witness and PW1complainant also followed them, crossed the road and stood near thePan Stall and both, this witness and complainant, went near them.Thereafter, accused no.1 sat over the motorcycle brought by accusedno.2 and they both proceeded towards Dhule and returned after 10minutes and then both went to Shamsundar Lodge. According tohim, that time, accused no.1 gave signal and called them inside thelodge and accused no.1 thereafter, instructed accused no.2 to acceptwhatever money is there, though it is not sufficient and so accusedno.2 went out of the lodge, halted near the Pan Stall. There weretalks between complainant and accused no.2 and accused no.2 askedcomplainant as to how much money he has brought and complainanttold about carrying Rs.800/- and accused no.2 asked complainant tohandover money to the person sitting in the Pan Stall, who acceptedthe money. Such is not the version of PW1 Prakash.It is pertinent to note that, when accused no.2 was away fromaccused no.1, question arises how does he know what was theconversation between complainant and accused no.1 regardingquestioning about how much cash was carried. {13} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 201313.It is also come in the evidence of PW1 Prakash and PW2 Vinodthat amount was directed to be paid to accused no.3, a Pan Stallowner, but he is dead. There is nothing to indicate that accused no.3was aware that amount received by him from PW1 complainant wastowards bribe. 14.Therefore, on reanalysis of evidence of PW1 Prakash and PW2Vinod, it is emerging that, firstly, there is demand by two accused atthe one and same time during the first meeting. During the day oftrap, there is apparently no demand by accused no.1 and there aremere events of making gestures to PW1 complainant and PW2shadow pancha to come out of the office. Both witnesses speakabout both accused proceeding on motorcycle to Dhule. According toPW1 complainant, they returned after one hour, whereas accordingto PW2 shadow pancha, they returned after ten minutes. It is alsoemerging that, accused no.1 merely asking accused no.2 to takewhatever amount is given and he does not speak of directions beinggiven regarding amount to be paid to Pan Stall owner as is deposedby PW2 shadow pancha. Therefore, here there is no acceptance byaccused no.1 or accused no.2. Recovery is from deceased accusedno.3. However, as stated above, there is nothing to show that {14} CRI APPEAL 2 OF 2013accused no.3 acted as agent and knowingly accepted bribe on behalfof accused nos.1 and 2.Consequently, here the essentials i.e. demand and acceptanceare not cogently proved that too beyond reasonable doubt. For abovereasons, both witnesses are not consistent regarding the sequence ofevents and on the point of actual demand. As stated above, neitherof accused nos.1 and 2 have accepted the tainted currency. Therefor,with such quality of evidence, case of prosecution cannot beaccepted. 15.Perused the judgment under challenge. In the opinion of thisCourt, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court is the possibleview that could emerge even on complete re-appreciation ofevidence. Bearing in mind the settled law while dealing with aappeal against acquittal, this Court finds no merits in the appeal so asto interfere. Accordingly, following order is passed : ORDER Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT