High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 361 OF 2004The State of Maharashtra ….Appellant VersusArun Sambhajirao BansodeAge: 43 years, Occu.: Talathi,Sajja Shingoli, Tahsil Office,Osmanabad. …..Respondent(Ori. Accused) …..APP for Appellant : Mr.V.S.Badakh Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Pathan Sartaj Khan H. ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 23 SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 04 OCTOBER, 2025 JUDGMENT :- 1. In this appeal, there is challenge by the State to the Judgmentand order of acquittal dated 07-02-2004 passed by learned SpecialJudge, Osmanabad, in Special Case (A.C.) No.6 of 1998. FACTUAL MATRIX2. Prosecution was launched against present respondent onbeing chargesheeted by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) authoritiesfor the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the {2} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that, PW2 complainant, hadapproached respondent for taking entry of existence of bore well inthe field, to enable him to obtain electricity connection. For doingsuch work, there are allegations that accused demanded Rs.300/-and accepted Rs.100/- as part payment. On report of PW2complainant, ACB authorities planned and executed trap in presenceof shadow panch where in there was alleged demand to thecomplainant of illegal gratification as well as its acceptance. Onabove charges, respondent faced trial before learned Special Judge,Osmanabad, who had occasion to examine in all eight prosecutionwitnesses as well as documentary evidence.On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, presentrespondent stood acquitted by judgment and order dated07-02-2004. Hence, instance appeal by State.SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of appellant State :3. Learned APP took this Court through evidence of PW2 andwould submit that this witness in his evidence justified that for takingentry in 7/12 extract, approached respondent, a Talathi, whodemanded Rs.300/- as bribe. Therefore, complainant, who was in {3} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 Military services, had approached ACB and had lodged report on thestrength of which, ACB authorities planned trap by arrangingindependent witness, panch and given both complainant and shadowpancha necessary instructions about execution of trap. Learned APPpointed out that, apart from evidence of PW2 complainant,prosecution adduced evidence of PW3 shadow pancha. That, theyboth are consistent on material counts. That, essential ingredientsfor attracting the charges i.e. demand and acceptance aredemonstrated and substantiated. 4.Learned APP further submitted that, after investigation wascompleted, chargesheet and papers were referred to SanctioningAuthority PW1, who had applied mind and thereafter, accordedsanction, thus, according to learned APP, a full-proof case wastendered before learned trial Court, but because of improperappreciation of evidence and minor inconsistencies in evidence,acquittal has resulted and therefore, it is urged to allowed the appealby setting aside the impugned judgment. On behalf of Respondent / Accused :5. Learned counsel for respondent supported the order of {4} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 acquittal by submitting that, prosecution had failed to establish thecase beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel pointed out thatevidence of PW2 complainant did not find complete support fromPW3 shadow pancha or even very Investigating Officer. That, veryaspects of demand and acceptance has come under shadow ofdoubts. That, witnesses PW2 complainant and PW3 shadow panchaare not consistent and there are variances on various counts. Hefurther pointed out that, here sanction order, though obtainedthrough PW1 sanctioning authoirity, very sanction order, which waswas purportedly issued, was typed by staff by referring to modelsanction order and moreover, sanction order is issued in twolanguages i.e. English and Marathi and one of the sanction orders isnot on record. Accordingly, it is submitted that case of prosecutionhas suffered serious blow and therefore, was not worthy of credenceand consequently, it rightly came to be dismissed.Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble ApexCourt in the case of Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of A.P. inCriminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Cri.) No(s).9091 of 2022) dated10-07-2024; Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 (LiveLaw (SC)310), and the Judgments of this Court in the cases of Vijay s/oWasudeo Shende v. The State of Maharashtra, 2024 ALL MR (Cri) {5} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 2132; State of Maharashtra v. Baliram s/o Vithoba Bhute, 2024 ALLMR (Cri) 2150; Manoj Ramesh Waghela v. The State andMaharashtra dated 19-07-2024; The State of Maharashtra (ACBC.R.No.20/2002) v. Ramesh Khandu Salve dated 05-03-2021; aswell as Judgment of High Court of Gujarat in the case of AjitkumarSomnath Pandya v. State of Gujarat, LAWS (GJH)-1991-8-51. EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT6.In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of inall eight witnesses. Sum and substance of their evidence is as under :PW1 Dr.Satish Shankar Bhide is the Sanctioning Authority. Atexh.14, he deposed as under : “1.Presently I am serving as Additional Collector Nagpur. On 21.11.98 Iwas serving as Sub. Divisional Officer, Osmanabad. Arun SambhajiraoBansode, was serving as Talathi of Sajja Shingoli Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad atthat time. I was the appointing and removing authority of all the Talathiunder Osmanabad Sub-Division including Arun Shabhajirao Bansode,because I was Sub-Divisional Officer Osmanabad.2.I received papers of investigation pertaining to crime no.27/98 fromDy. S.P., A.C.B. Osmanabad. for the purpose of considering the question ofissuing sanction to prosecute Arun Sambhajirao Bansode. Sanction wasrequired to be issued for prosecuting the accused under Prevention ofCorruption Act. It was the story that, the complainant had dug Bor-well inhis lane and wanted to take entry there of in the 7/12 Extract. For that {6} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 purpose the accused Arun Bansode demanded Rs.500/- as bribe, butultimately the matter was settled for Rs.300/-the Demand was made on16.5.98. On 18.5.98 Rs.100/-were paid and balance of Rs. 200/- was to bepaid on 20.5.1998. The accused was trapped by A.C.B. Officer whileaccepting the bribe amount of Rs. 200/- from the complainant. All thepapers pertaining to trap proceedings were forwarded to my office. Ireceived the papers on 23.5.98. 3. I read all the papers of investigation which included the complaintof complainant, pre-trap panchnama, post-trap panchnama, and statementsof witnesses and after applying my mind to all the documents and facts Icame to the conclusion that, sanction to prosecute the accused should begranted and accordingly I issued sanction order. I issued sanction in twolanguages namely Marathi & English and in triplicate. I will be able toidentify sanction orders if shown to me. I am now being shown sanctionorder dt. 21.12.98 bearing outward no. EST/WS/1998/528. It bears mysignature and the seal of my office, its contents are correct. It is at Exh. 15.This sanction order is in English. (There is no Marathi sanction order in therecord and proceeding of this case.) On 1.6.98 I forwarded to the A.C.B. thetrue copies of first page of service book and the appointment and postingorder pertaining to the accused. The letter now shown to me is same, itbears my signature, its contents are correct, The documents attachedtherewith are true copies pertaining to service record of the accused. Letterexhibited at Exh. No, 16. and documents attached there on are at Exh.16/1,16/2 and 16/3.” PW2 Adinath Bhimrao Shinde is complainant. At exh.30, hedeposed as under : " 1. During the year 1998 I was serving on the post of Naik inIndian Military and my place of posting was at Jamnagar in Gujrat State.Shingoli is my native place. My parents are staying at my Shingoli. There island standing in the name of my father at Shingoli bearing Gat No.203 {7} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 admeasuring one hectare. In the year 1996 the bore well was dug in thisland. 2.On 8.5.98 I came to Shingoli on two months leave. I had decided toinstall electric motor on the bore well. Therefore, I contacted the MSEBOfficers for getting an electricity connection. The officers told me that Ishould produce the 7/12 extract having the entry regarding the existence ofthe bore-well. I asked my father and some elderly person as to how theentry regarding existence of the borewell is to be taken to the 7/12 extract.Everyone told me to contact Talathi of Shingoli.3.On 16.5.98 at 10 a.m. I met the accused, who was then working asTalathi in his residence at Bhimnagar, Osmanabad. The accused told methat he is the Talathi of Shingoli village. I told him about my problem tohim. The accused asked me to give one application under the signature ofmy father to him for making necessary entry in the record of rights. He alsotold me that for finishing this work the sum of Rs.500/- should be paid tohim. I asked him the purpose for which he demanded the amount. He toldme that for completing the work, I have to pay him that amount. I told himthat I was not having that much of amount and I also told him that it wasthe need to get entry of the existence of the bore well to the 7/12 extract.Since I was in problem. I thought it to pay the sum of Rs. 300/- for thiswork to the accused. The transaction was settled between myself and theaccused for Rs.300/-. 5. On 18.5.1998. I handed over the application duly signed by myfather and the blank paper duly signed by four persons to the accused.Accused asked me to pay the settled amount of Rs.300/-. I paid him thesum of Rs.100/- and assured him to pay the remaining balance afterwards.He told me that he would complete the work on 20.5.98, and asked me toget the 7/12 extract on that day from him by paying Rs.200/- to him.Thereafter I home returned back to him and narrated all these details to myfather.
Legal Reasoning
{8} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 6. On 19.5.98 at 10 a.m. I visited the office of Anti-corruption Bureau,Osmanabad. I narrated all the details and put-forth my grievances to thePolice Officers there."PW3 Prakash Uttamrao Tekale is Shadow Panch. His evidenceis at Exh. 34. "2.On 19.5.98 myself and Sanjay Ramrao Eklare were called at Anti-corruption Bureau (ACB) Osmanabad. One Adinath Bhimrao Shinde waspresent there.4. Shri.Adinath Bhimrao Shinde was present in the office of AntiCorruption Bureau Dy.SP., Shri. Dabkekar introduced him to us. He told usto hear his complaint. He told in our presence that one landed property wasstanding in the name of his aged father and that some entry was to be maderegarding the bore well dug in it in the year 1996. He told us that hecontacted the accused for that purpose and that the accused had demandedthe sum of Rs.500/-from him as bribe to take the entry. Thereafter, innegotiations the amount between the two was settled for Rs.300/-. He alsotold us that as instructed by the accused he had obtained the signatures offour adjoining land owners on the blank paper and that he had paid thesum of Rs.100/- and the remaining sum of Rs. 200/- was to be paid to theaccused on 20.5.98. He also told in our presence that he had brought thesum of Rs. 200/-. The typed complaint was to us the contents from it werenarrated in our presence by Adinath Shinde. Thereafter, myself and otherpancha Sanjay signed on it. complaint shown is the same, Exh.32.5.Thereafter, in Anti Corruption Bureau one Anande, PC showed usthe anthracene powder and also told its effects in ultraviolet lamp. He alsotold us that if the anthracene powder is seen in ultraviolet lamp then itappears with blue-white shining. Thereafter, complainant Shinde handedover two notes each of the denomination of 100/- to PC, Anande. Shri. {9} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 Anande, PC kept those two notes on one plain paper and appliedanthracene powder to it by cotton boll. Then PC Anande kept those twonotes in the pocket of the wearing shirt of complainant Shinde. Then Shri.Dabkekar, Dy. A.P. told Shri. Shinde that on demand these two notes shouldbe paid to the accused. I was asked to accompany Shinde and to hear thetalk between Shinde and the accused. Other pancha Sanjay Eklare wasasked to join with other members of raiding-party. DY.S.P. asked Shinde thatin case the amount is accepted by the accused then by way of signal heshould raise his hand and throw the bag from his hand. He also instructedhim to be lift it again and to throw it on the ground. Thereafter, the pretrappanchnama was written there from 9.00 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. It is now shownto me. The contents therein are correct. It bears my signature as also thesignature of other pancha Exh. 10.6. Thereafter, myself and complainant Shinde left Anti corruptionBureau at 10.30 a.m. and reached the office of Tahsildar, Osmanabad at10.40 a.m. Shinde inquired about accused. We were told that the accusedwas working in Bachat Bhawan. My self and Shinde went in Bachat Bhawanand we saw the accused there wearing Paizama and Nehru shirt. Shindeasked the accused whether 7/12 extract was prepared. The accused toldhim that it was ready. He then asked Shinde as to whether he had broughtthe amount. Shinde told him that he had brought the amount. Shinde askedaccused to join for a cup of tea Thereafter, myself complainant Shinde andthe accused went in Canteen which is in the campus of Tahsil office. Theaccused sat on one bench facing towards east and myself and Shinde weresitting on other bench facing toward the west. Shinde gave order for tea.We all took a cup of tea. Thereafter. Shinde paid the bill and again sat onhis bench. Then accused handed over 7/12 extract to Shinde. Shindecollected it and kept it in a bag. Thereafter Shinde paid the amount from hiswearing shirt and the accused accepted it. Thereafter, Shinde lifted the bagand kept it on the table. He again lifted the bag. At that time, twoconstables rushed and entered into the room from the window. Thereafter,they caught hold of both the hands of the accused. Thereafter, the accused {10} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 tried to take his amount from his left hand into right hand and to put ininto his mouth".PW4 Trimbak Digambar Joshi is Panch Witness to trappanchanama. His evidence is at Exh. 39. PW5 Maya Sripati Damodhare is PHC, who registeredComplaint. Her evidence is at exh.40.PW6 Dashrath Dnyanoba Mundhe is Panch witness topanchanama of existence of bore well. His evidence is at Exh. 41.PW7 Venkat Jaisingrao Dabkekar is Investigating Officer, whoinitially carried out investigation and later on handed over theinvestigation to PW8. His evidence is at Exh. 46.PW8Kalidas Shankarrao Suryawanshi is Investigating Officer.His evidence is at Exh. 57. ANALYSIS 7. On one hand, according to appellant State, evidence ofcomplainant PW2 Adinath, and shadow pancha PW3 Tekale is {11} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 consistent on both counts i.e. demand as well as acceptance andaccused was caught raid-handed and therefore, charges standproved. On the other hand, respondent/accused put up a specificcase that, firstly, evidence of both complainant PW2 Adinath andshadow pancha PW3 Tekale is inconsistent on the chronology andsequence of events and they are not lending support to each otherrendering the case doubtful. Secondly, electronic evidence by way ofvoice sample is not supported with necessary certificate and thirdly,there is no valid sanction and therefore, any trial without validsanction does not stand.8.Studied the evidence of complainant PW2 Adinath at exh.30.Substance of his evidence is that, he had approached accused, aTalathi, for taking entry of existence of bore well in his agriculturalland to avail benefits of electric connection to enable him to installelectric motor to the bore well. In that backdrop, he claimsthat on 16-05-1998, he approached accused, who initially asked tohim to tender an application and then put up demand of Rs.500/- todo the work. According to him, the deal was finalized at Rs.300/-.Complainant paid Rs.100/- to accused on the said day. However, heapproached ACB authorities and lodged report exh.32 against {12} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 accused for demanding illegal gratification.On the strength of the same, PW7 Dabkekar, InvestigatingOfficer, summoned pancha, then complainant and shadow panchawere given instructions and complainant was asked to bring currencyto apply anthracene powder and thereafter, both were instructed toapproach accused and specifically instructed to pay tainted currencyby way of bribe only on demand and then relay necessary signal. In paragraphs 10 and 11, he has narrated the events afterapproaching Tahsil Office i.e. in the office of accused in BachatBhavan and in his evidence, he submitted that after approachingaccused, who was busy in work, he was asked regarding the workand accused allegedly told that he has done the work and furtherasked regarding the balance amount. Complainant claims that hesuggested accused to come out for taking tea in a hotel andaccordingly, he himself, shadow pancha and accused went to thecanteen. There, he claims to have placed order for tea and beforewaiter could bring the same, he claims that accused handed over tohim the 7/12 extract, he got it confirmed that accused had madenecessary entry and kept the same in his bag. This was followed byserving of tea by waiter and then accused asked, who was the personaccompanying him and complainant introduced him as brother-in- {13} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 law. He further testified that, thereafter, accused said to him that hehas done his work and asked for the remaining amount. Then,complainant allegedly removed the notes from front pocket of hisshirt and then handed over to accused, who allegedly accepted itafter which predetermined signal was relayed, raiding party waitingin lane caught hold of accused, who tried to make efforts to escapefrom their clutches.This witness has faced cross-examination. The relevant cross-examination to which learned counsel for respondent invitedattention commences from paragraph 16 i.e. which is pertaining tothe events that emerged in the office and canteen. In paragraph 17,witness answered that he had asked accused in the office itself thatwhether his work was done and he was told by accused that it wasdone. Thereafter, all suggestions are denied. 9.PW3 Tekale is shadow pancha and he in his evidence atexh.34, in paragraph 4, stated about being called to ACB office, hebeing introduced to complainant PW2, who allegedly briefed aboutdemand of Rs.300/- raised by accused for taking entry in 7/12extract and he also stated about procedure explained by ACBauthorities. In paragraph 6, he stated that he and complainant both {14} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 reached office of the Tahsildar, Osmanabad. He stated thatcomplainant asked accused whether 7/12 extract was prepared. Hedeposed that, accused told complainant that it was ready. He thendeposed that, accused asked complainant as to whether he hasbrought the amount. That, complainant told him that he has broughtthe amount. Thereafter, complainant asked him to join for a cup oftea and they all come in canteen and had tea and here, according tothis witness, accused handed over 7/12 extract, complainantcollected it and kept it in his bag and paid amount to the accused,who accepted it followed by apprehension of accused by ACBauthorities. Above witness has also faced extensive cross-examinationwherein he deposed in paragraph 8 that, after reaching BachatBhavan, accused was approached and complainant asked accusedwhether copy of 7/12 was ready and accused told that it was keptready. This witness stated that they were there for 5 to 10 minutesand thereafter, he denied the suggestion that complainant askedaccused to join for a cup of tea and accused was denying to join fortea. He answered and admitted that accused took with him a copy of7/12 extract and come with complainant to tea stall. He admittedthat they had cup of tea first and thereafter, accused handed over {15} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 7/12 extract to complainant. He admitted that thereafter, it was keptby the complainant in his bag. However, he denied that complainantPW2 tried to put amount in the pocket of shirt of the accused and atthat time, some scuffle took place between accused and Shinde. 10.On complete re-appreciation, here as submitted by learnedcounsel for the respondent, PW2 complainant and PW3 shadowpancha are not consistent about chronology of events which tookplace after accused was approached in his office i.e. the eventsnarrated by PW2 complainant in his evidence about he himselfrequesting the accused to join for cup of tea and then they come outand went to a tea stall and there demand being put up by accusedfollowing by handing over of the 7/12 extract, complainant handingover tainted currency and thereafter, on relaying predeterminedsignal, raiding party apprehending accused. The sequence of accusedhanding over copy of 7/12 extract and complainant keeping it in bagis also not consistently stated by these two witnesses. Cross-examination of PW3 shadow pancha shows that though suggestion ofamount been tried to thrust is denied, there is material suggestingsome scuffle taking place between accused and complainant whilehanding over the cash and pocketing it. Defence has come with a {16} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 specific case of thrusting. 11.Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that hereevidence of PW2 complainant also does not find support from theevidence of the PW7 Investigating Officer. He pointed out thattiming of lodging report is not consistent as stated by these witnesses,who are crucial on the point of very entertaining of complaint by ACBauthorities. On such count, if evidence of PW2 complainant isvisited, it is emerging that he stated that while lodging exh.32, heapproached office of accused on 19-05-1998 at 10 a.m., however,surprisingly, PW7 Dabkekar, Investigating Officer, who tookcognizance of complaint, has stated about complainant approachinghim at 04:00 p.m. and not 10:00 a.m. Therefore, there is a huge gapand different timings quoted by these two witnesses raising doubtabout lodgment of complainant exh.32 on 19-05-1998. 12.Learned APP raised strong objection by pointing to theevidence of PW1 sanctioning authority and has submitted that herePW1 Dr.Satish Shankar Bhide, who was working as AdditionalCollector and has accorded sanction, has examined at exh.14 and he,in his evidence testified that, he received papers from the {17} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 Investigating Officer, about trap by ACB on accused and for receivingsanction to prosecute him. According to him, he has received saidpapers on 23-05-1998. He claims to have read all the papersincluding complaint, pre-trap panchanama, post trap panchanama,statement of witnesses and then further deposed about applying hismind to all these documents and coming to conclusion that sanctionneeds to be accorded and accordingly, he also accorded sanction on21-12-1998.While in cross-examination, he admitted that in the SanctionOrder dated 21-12-1998, details of papers perused by him are notreflected and no grounds of satisfaction are stated therein. Heanswered that above papers were with him for one and half month.In paragraph 5, he answered that Sanction Order was typed bySteno-Typist by referring model sanction order. 13.Therefore, what is emerging from above evidence of PW1Sanctioning Authority is that, this Officer has received papers on23-05-1998 itself, however, Sanction Order, authorizing sanction toprosecute accused, was issued on 21-12-1998 i.e. after almost sevenmonths. He answered that investigation papers were with him forone and half month. PW7 Investigating Officer, who has noted {18} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 complaint exh.32, and has conducted investigation, did not movePW1 Sanctioning Authority for according sanction. PW7Investigating Officer has stated that, after conducting investigation,he handed over investigation to one Kalidas Shankarrao Suryawanshii.e. PW8 on 26-05-1998, who in spite of taking over investigation on29-06-1998, it has come in his evidence that he did not send originalfile directly to Sanctioning Authority for obtaining sanction.According to him, Superintendent of Police (ACB), Aurangabad hadsent that file to Sanctioning Authority. Therefore, there is materialsuggesting that prosecuting agency i.e. A.C.B. did not moveSanctioning Authority within time. It is further emerging from theevidence of PW1 Sanctioning Authority i.e. inspite of receivingpapers, he has sat over the same for over one and half month andmoreover, he admitted that his Steno Typist has prepared theSanction Order exh.15 as per the model standing order. 14.In the light of above discussion, on re-appreciation andreanalysis of evience, even this Court is convinced that PW2complainant and PW3 shadow pancha, who are crucial witnesses, arenot consistent on the chronology of events. Very lodgment of reporthas come under shadow of doubt. Prosecuting agency has delayed {19} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2004 the process of obtaining sanction. Sanctioning Authority has signedover the sanction order, which is copied from the model sanctionorder and Sanction Order is prepared by the Steno-Typist by referringmodel sanction order. For above reasons, the case of prosecutiondoes come under shadow of doubt. 15.In the light of above quality of evidence, no fault can be foundin the findings and reasons assigned by the learned trial Court foracquitting accused. Therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, I pass following order . ORDER Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT