High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 694 OF 2008The State of Maharashtra Through P.I. Anti Corruption Bureau,Nanded.….Appellant VersusShaikh Moin S/o SulemanAge: 35 years, Occu.: Talathi,Sajja Sindkhed, Tq.Mahur,Dist.Nanded.…..Respondent …..APP for Appellant : Mr.S.P. JoshiAdvocate for Respondent : Mr. H.I.Pathan ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 19 SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 22 SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT :- 1. State hereby assails judgment and order dated 01-12-2006passed by the learned Special Judge, Nanded in Special (ACB) CaseNo.16 of 2004, acquitting present respondent from charges underSections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct. FACTS GIVING RISE TO TRIAL2.Complainant PW1 Suresh approached accused (respondent {2} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008herein), who was working as Talathi for taking entry in the revenuerecord on the basis of sale deed. According to prosecution, in spite ofrepeated visits of complainants, his work was not done. Finally,accused demanded Rs.2,000/- to carry out necessary entry and onnegotiations, accused agreed to accept Rs.1,500/- as illegalgratification.As complainant was not willing to pay bribe, he lodgedcomplaint (exh.12) with ACB authorities. ACB authoritiessummoned independent pancha PW2 Wakharkar and introduced andapprises him to PW1 complainant. Necessary instructions weregiven. PW2 Pancha was directed to accompany complainant at thetime of demand and acceptance and PW1 complainant was furtherasked to relay predetermined signal on acceptance. 3.Accordingly, PW1 complainant was accompanied by PW2shadow pancha to the office of accused. There, accused enquiredabout bribe amount and it was duly handed over by PW1complainant followed by relaying predetermined signal. Thereafter,ACB staff came inside the office. Accused was apprehended, and oninvestigation, tried before learned Special Judge, who onappreciation of prosecution evidence, reached to a finding that {3} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008prosecution failed to bring home the charges and thereby acquittedaccused.Feeling aggrieved by the above decision, State has come up inappeal.SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of appellant State :4.Learned APP took this Court through the evidence of PW1complainant, PW2 shadow pancha, PW3 sanctioning authority andPW4 Investigating Officer and submits that there is cogent, reliableand consistent evidence regarding bribe demanded by accused fordoing official work. According to him, both PW1 complainant andPW2 shadow pancha are consistent and corroborating to each other.Even evidence of PW4 Investigating Officer was sufficient to drawinference of guilt and as such, according to learned APP, it was a fitcase for allowing the prosecution case. However, according to learnedAPP, learned trial Court failed to consider and appreciate evidence,more particularly evidence of PW1 complainant and PW2 shadowpancha and erred in acquitting the accused. Hence, he seeksinterference at the hands of this Court by allowing the appeal. {4} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008On behalf Respondent Accused :5. Per contra, supporting the judgment of the learned trial Court,learned counsel for accused pointed out that there is no trustworthy,reliable and legally acceptable evidence in support of the accusations.He pointed out that here demand itself has not been proved. Ratheraccording to him, it is an act of deliberate thrusting of money withoutthere being any demand. Therefore, according to him, essentials ofestablishing the charge being absent, there is no illegality orperversity in the order of acquittal and he prays to dismiss the appealfor want of merits. EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT6.In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of fivewitnesses, which includes complainant, shadow pancha, sanctioningauthority and Investigating Officer. In view of nature of charge, crucial evidence is of PW1complainant and PW2 shadow pancha, who are said to be party tothe act of demand as well as acceptance. It would be appropriate toreproduce evidence of PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow panchaaccordingly. {5} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008PW1 Suresh Rupsing Rathod is complainant. At exh.11, hedeposed as under :“1. I own 13 acres of land at my village. 7 acres of my land is ancestraland I have purchased another 5 acres of land from Rukinibai LalsingRathod. It was purchased before two years. The sale deed was registered.The said land was to be mutated in the name of my brother and therefore, Itook copy of sale deed to accused he was Talathi. I requested the accusedfor mutation in the name of my brother.. I met with accused at Kinwat.Accused told that sometime would be required for mutation. I handed overthe papers to accused and then went to him for 2 to 3 times. Accused toldthat further time would be required. Accused then demanded Rs.1500/-. Itold accused that I would give the money later on as I was not having thesame then and there.2 I then came to office of Anti Corruption Bureau Nanded and lodgedmy complaint against accused alleging that accused demanded money foreffecting mutation. My complaint now shown to me is the same. It bears mysignature. Contents thereof are true and correct. Complaint is at exh. 12. Iwas called by ACB officer on next day morning. ACB officer prepared a planin ACB office by smearing powder to currency notes. I had produced thosecurrency notes consisting of 15 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each. Pre trappanchanama was prepared in ACB office. Panch witnesses were present forthat panchanama3 After pre trap panchanama, myself, both panch and ACB staff wentto village Sindkhed. We reached there at 11.00 am. I went to the office ofaccused and wished him. One panch witness was present with me. I toldaccused that I had brought the money, and to give mutation extract to me. Ithen gave money to accused but accused told me to come after sometime.Accused accepted the money. I then came outside the office and gaveagreed signal to raiding party. ACB staff came inside the office and caughthold the accused. On arrival of ACB staff, I was asked to stay outside. I wasnot willing to give money to accused. Accused before court is same.”
Legal Reasoning
{6} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008PW2 Pandurang Ganpatrao Wakharkar is shadow pancha. Atexh.13, he deposed as under : “01. On 24-6-2004 1 was called in the office of ACB Nanded. AbdulHamid was present with me. ACB officer shri Pathak informed about thetrap. We were asked to come on 25-6-2004 at 6 p.m. Accordingly, we wentto the ACB office on 25-6-2004 at 6 p.m. Complainant Suresh Rathod, ACBOfficer Pathak and staff were present. Demonstration of characteristic ofanthracene ultra violate lamp was shown and I was told about the trap tobe lead at Shindkhed. Complainant produced 15 currency notes of 100rupees each. Anthracene powder were smeared to those currency notes, andthe amount was kept in the pant pocket of complainant. I was instructed toremain present with the complainant. Complainant was instructed to givebribe money to the accused only on demand Complainant was instructed togive signal to raiding party by giving three jerks to his handkerchief.Panchnama of pre-trap was prepared in ACB office: Panchanama nowshown to me bears my signature. Contents thereof are true and correct. Thepanchanama is at Exh.No.14.02.After pre-trap panchanama, we left ACB office at about 7 to 7.30a.m. and proceeded by jeep to Shindkhed. We reached Shindkhed at about11.15 a.m.03. The jeep was stopped near a river at some distance from village.Myself and complainant went ahead to Talathi office by walk. Rest of themembers from raiding party staved at some distance. Shri Sheikh wasTalathi in that office. Complainant wished the Talathi. Accused before courtwas the Talathi. Complainant enquired about his work of 7/12 extract.Complainant asked if his work was completed. Accused asked thecomplainant about money. Complainant told that he had brought themoney. Accused then took out one file from his cupboard, and put on table.Accused then completed the remaining work by making some signatures.Complainant then kept the amount of Rs.1500/- (bribe money) in the hands {7} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008of accused. Accused kept that money in the back pocket of his pant with hisright hand. Complainant came out side the room and gave agreed signal bygiving jerks to the handkerchief thrice. Members from raiding party rushedthere. PSI Hashmi caught hold both hands of accused. Shri Pathak gave hisintroduction. The numbers of currency notes of bribe money tallied with thenumbers noted in pre-trap panchanama. Other four person were sitting inthe office room and they were asked to go out. The currency notes werechecked under the light of ultra violate lamp, Greenish shining was seen onthe currency notes. PHI Hashmi took out the bribe money from the pantpocket and the pant was given to the accused. The pant from the person ofaccused was checked under the light of ultra--violate lamp. Shining wasseen to the pocket of the pant. The pant was seized. Detail panchanama ofthe trap was prepared on the spot. 04. The file of complainant Rathod was seized. After seizure of file, oursignatures were obtained. I put my signature on the panchanama.Panchanama now shown to me is the same. Contents thereof are true andcorrect. Panchanama is at Exh.No.15. I can identify the currency notes ifshown to me.” ANALYSIS7.On analyzing above evidence and on re-appreciation of thesame, it is evident that PW1 complainant himself appears to haveinformed accused about he bringing money and subsequently,handed it over. It is pertinent to note that, there is no demand byaccused on the relevant day. Thus, in absence of any demand, even iftainted currency found in possession of accused, case of prosecutionof demand and acceptance of bribe to attract the charges cannot beaccepted and law is fairly settled on such point. {8} CRI APPEAL 694 OF20088.Learned counsel for respondent has pointed out that, it is acase of deliberate thrusting for false implication. He also took thisCourt through the cross-examination faced by PW2 Wakharkar,shadow pancha. PW2 shadow pancha in cross-examination admitted that he isunable to recall the events which took place on the day of trap. Healso admitted that he cannot give details of talks took place betweencomplainant and accused regarding the record. He also answeredthat, on enquiry about bribe money, accused was shocked. Hefurther admitted that, ACB Officer did not record his statement.Therefore, though this witness stated about accompanying PW1complainant to the office of accused, his above answers does not lendsupport to the prosecution case. He was a crucial witness. In light ofabove answers, prosecution case cannot be said to be proved beyondreasonable doubt.9.Perused the judgment under challenge. Bearing in mind thesettled principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal, thisCourt does not find any patent perversity so as to interfere in theimpugned judgment. PW1 Complainant’s evidence has inflictedserious dent to the prosecution case, as he in examination-in-chief {9} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008itself stated about he himself handing over bribe amount even beforedemand being raised by accused. For such reasons, there being nomerits in the appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly,I proceed to pass following order : ORDER Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT