Buddhabhushan Sukhadev Dabhade v. The State of Maharashtra

{1} REVN 247 OF 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 247 OF 2025Buddhabhushan Sukhadev DabhadeAge : 33 years, Occu. : Service -Irrigation Department, Maharashtra Government, Address : Flat No.4, Dhamma Heights, Nashik.….Applicant VersusThe State of Maharashtra(Representative : Deputy Superintendentof Police, Anti Corruption Division, Aurangabad.…..Respondent …..Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Buddhabhushan Sukhadev Dabhade(Party-In-Person) (through VC) APP for Respondent : Mr.S.A.Gaikwad ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 26 NOVEMBER, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 01 DECEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT :1.Present revisionist, who is arraigned as an accused in SpecialCase no.254 of 2025 on the file of learned Adhoc District Judge-3,Aurangabad, is taking exception to order dated 24-06-2025 passedbelow application Exhibit 4 by the said learned Judge, whereby hisapplication for discharge stood rejected. {2} REVN 247 OF 20252.Facts in nutshell are that, complainant Rajpal Bhopalat workedas a Clerk in the Galhati Medium Project, Shahapur, Tq.Ambad, District Jalna, and in the same office accused worked as AssistantEngineer. In administrative terms, accused was immediate superiorto complainant. According to complainant, in spite of he regular inthe work, accused used to question him for not coming to the officeand not doing work and even threatened to suspend him. Furtheraccording to complainant, accused demanded Rs.5,000/- everymonth if at all complainant wants to save his job. Complainant, outof fear, transferred amount on PhonePe number of accused time totime. Once complainant pay amount to accused in cash. On15-12-2022, accused issued show cause notice to complainantalleging negligence in Government duty and further askedcomplainant to pay Rs.9,000/- to withdraw the notice. On12-01-2023, complainant transferred Rs.4,000/- via PhonePe to theaccount of accused, but thereafter, as complainant was not willing topay bribe, he lodged report with ACB authorities, who carried outinvestigation, planned and executed trap and arrested accused andon completion of investigation, he was chargesheeted.3.Accused moved application exh.4 for discharge before learned {3} REVN 247 OF 2025trial Court, but the same was rejected and in consequence thereto, present revision has been preferred praying for discharge. 4.Before this court, accused has appeared and put up his case inthe capacity as party-in-person and has also placed on recordvoluminous written submissions, citations as well as reply to the sayof learned APP. He being party-in-person, he was patiently heard tohis satisfaction.5.Heard. The sum and substance of his argument, which wascomprehended by this Court could be summarized as under : Initially, revisionist apprised about himself and that he isworking as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department, Maharashtra Government and belongs to scheduled caste category. Alleging false implication, he would submit that, there is no materialor case against him so as to proceed for trial. According to him veryessence of demand, which is sine qua non, is patently missing in theentire chargesheet. According to him, aspect of demand is alsomissing from the demand verification, which is at page 51 to 53.According to him, on the contrary, the material therein reflects someprivate loan transaction and not demand of illegal gratification or {4} REVN 247 OF 2025bribe. On account of absence of demand and its essential ingredientsfor attracting offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of CorruptionAct, he sought reliance on various judgments of Hon’ble Apex Courtas well as of this Court and further according to him, in this casemens rea was also patently missing. 6.He next submitted that accused had no work with thepetitioner or any pending work with him and therefore, there is noquestion of putting up any demand. According to him, accused wasirregular in his work and he availed too many leaves, which wasaffecting official work and therefore, merely show cause notice wasissued and the same was in official capacity. According to him, evenotherwise, disciplinary action taking authority for the category ofclass of post held by complainant was Superintending Engineer andnot applicant, who was merely Assistant Engineer and therefore, there is no question of putting up any demand of bribe on accountissuing notice. Thus, according to him, when there was no officialwork, there is no question of putting up demand. 7.Next he would question grant of sanction as according to him, here sanctioning authority had not applied its mind to the material {5} REVN 247 OF 2025before according sanction. He questions very authority and power ofsanctioning authority to grant sanction, as according to him, he beingappointed by Chief Engineer, CADA, in view of GovernmentResolution (GR) dated 12-02-2013, sanction to prosecute must begranted by Executive Director, however, here Under Secretary, WaterResources Department, has accorded sanction, even when notcompetent. He tried to invite attention of this court to the said GR aswell as circular dated 30-05-2022. Further according to him, in viewof various Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, sanctioning authority has to apply its mind, but here there was noindication of independent application of mind. Therefore, he referred to various rulings of Hon’ble Apex Courtincluding the case of Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 2015 SC3060 as well as decision of this Court in the case of Sunil AchyutraoThete v. State of Maharashtra dated 20-10-2023.8.It is his further submission that, here, there is an attempt tothrust tainted currency in his pocket and there was no acceptance. According to him, there are no traces of anthracene powder to hishands, so as to accept prosecution case about acceptance. {6} REVN 247 OF 20259.It is also his submission that complaint is full of contradictionsas numerous dates for registering complaint are reflected in thechargesheet i.e. in PCR, MCR, thereby raising issue of very credibilityof complaint.10.He pointed out that, here, there was deliberate attempt toapprehend petitioner by drawing plan and it is evident from the veryact of investigating machinery arranging panchas 15 days prior to theapprehension. Thus, according to him, there is violation of fairnessexpected from investigating machinery and trap itself is tainted one.11.Revisionist took this Court through the extract of conversationsbetween him and complainant and would submit that it is apparenttherefrom that whatever reference regarding money is emergingtherein, it was towards earlier credits and dues and it does notpertain to any demand or bribe. but according to him, such crucialaspect has not been appreciated by learned trial court while decidinghis discharge application. 12.Lastly, he submitted that complainant had personal grudge forissuing office memorandum and show cause notice and therefore, with ill intention, false and fabricated story is narrated about demand {7} REVN 247 OF 2025of illegal gratification and further trap was orchestrated withmalafied intention and even investigation machinery was not fair andwas rather biased. He also placed reliance on the following rulings : (i) B. Jayaraj v. Stae of Andhra Pradesh,(2014) 13 SCC 55.(ii) Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admin), (1979) 4 SCC 725.(iii) Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), (2023( 18 SCC 251. 13.In answer to above, learned APP would point out that, accusedbeing a public servant, had allegedly demanded illegal gratificationfrom complaint, who was his subordinate. It is pointed out that forrefraining from taking action for remaining absent for longer time, bribe was demanded from complainant. That, said bribe wasdemanded every month. That, complainant had ultimatelyapproached ACB authorities and had given complaint, which wasduly noted and thereafter, it is pointed out that Investigating Officerarranged panchas, introduced them to complainant and necessaryinstructions were issued. He pointed out that investigatingmachinery had initially got demand verification done and only ongetting convinced that there was demand, trap was planned. Learned {8} REVN 247 OF 2025APP pointed out that, voice sample of accused was taken, itspanchanama was drawn and transcript of the conversation betweencomplaint and accused was also drawn. That, Investigating Officerhas in presence of independent panchas, drawn various panchanamaslike demand verification panchanama, voice sample panchanama, spot panchanama etc. and same are part of investigation papers. Hepointed out that, conversation text is also part of chargesheet and itis supported by certificate under Section 65B of the Indian EvidenceAct. He further pointed out that, after gathering sufficient evidence, due sanction has been obtained from Government. Even he addedthat, it is not open for accused to question the validity at this stage asit is a matter to be raised at the time of trial. He lastly submitted that, there being sufficient and strong evidence, learned trial Court rightlyrejected the application and he urges for similar treatment at thehands of this Court to the present proceedings.He placed reliance on the following rulings :(i)Padmakar Narhar Deshpande v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, 2024 (3) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 746.(ii) State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Chennai, City-I Department v. G.Easwaran, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 356.(iii)The Karnataka Lokayuktha Police v. Lakshman Rao Peshve, {9} REVN 247 OF 20252025 LiveLaw (SC) 941.(iv)Padmakar Narhar Deshpande v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-corruption Branch, Pune and Another, 2024All MR (Cri) 2684.14.Here, present revision is an off-shoot of order of rejection ofdischarge application by revision petitioner, who invoked Section 250of B.N.S.S. Act,2023 (old Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.).Before testing the merits of the arguments and thesustainability of the impugned order, it would be proper to give briefaccount of the settled legal position to be borne in mind whileexercising powers for considering discharge application underSections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. It is fairly settled position that, at such stage, Court dealingwith such application is merely expected to determine existence ofprima facie material for proceeding to frame charge and makeaccused persons face trial. Material gathered during investigation isexpected to be sifted with limited purpose to find out whether thereare sufficient grounds to proceed against accused. Neither in-depthanalysis nor meticulous analysis of evidence is expected at suchstage. Thus, the only duty of Court is to ascertain whether there isprima facie material suggesting existence of essential ingredients for {10} REVN 247 OF 2025the offences, which are alleged to be committed. Above position has been time and again reiterated since thecases of State of Bihar v/s Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union ofIndia v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another (1979) 3 SCC 4, and adecade back in the cases of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau ofInvestigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chanderand another (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Tamil Nadu (By Inspector ofPolice Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) v. N.Suresh Rajan and Others.(2014) 11 SCC 709; Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency(2019) 7 SCC 148; and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of UttarPradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651.15.Perused the chargesheet. Complainant seems to be working asClerk whereas accused was officiating as Assistant Engineer. The gistof the complaint received by ACB authorities from complainant, intranslated form, is as under :“Complaint Date: 13/01/2023I, Rajpal Suppadasing Bhopalat, age 30 years, occupation service, OfficeClerk, Gallhati Medium Project, Shahapur Branch, Irrigation Department, Tq.Ambad, Dist. Jalna, Mobile No. 7507938573.Do hereby personally appear and lodge the following complaint: On12/01/2023, I had submitted a complaint at the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad regarding the demand of bribe being made from me. The details are asunder: I have been working as Office Clerk since April 2022 at Gallhati MediumProject, Shahapur Branch, Irrigation Department, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. Mr.Buddhbhushan Sukhdev Dabhade, Assistant Engineer, Gallhati Medium Project, {11} REVN 247 OF 2025Shahapur Branch, Irrigation Department, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna is posted in myoffice and I work under his control. Even though I attend office regularly and nowork is pending on my part, Dabhade Saheb used to tell me, “You do not come tooffice on time and you do not do any work. I will get you suspended. If you want tosave your job, you will have to pay me Rs. 5,000 every month.” Being my superiorand fearing that he might harm my service, I agreed and, as and when hedemanded, transferred money several times from my PhonePe number 7507938573to his mobile/PhonePe number 9370159011 and also gave cash once. Despitepaying him money from time to time as demanded, on 15/12/2022 he issued mean office notice for “negligence in government duty” and “improvement in conductwhile performing government duty”. Thereafter, Dabhade Saheb personally andover phone told me, “If you want this notice withdrawn, you will have to pay meRs.9,000.” He kept pressing me for the amount. I told him I would pay after mysalary was credited. On 11/01/2023 my salary was credited, so he again pressedme and asked me to send the money through PhonePe. Accordingly, on 12/01/2023at 10:39 a.m., I transferred Rs.4,000 from my PhonePe to his PhonePe number9370159011. Even after that, Dabhade Saheb kept pressing me for the remainingRs. 5000/- I told him. I will come and meet you tomorrow morning and give it toyou.I have no desire to pay any bribe to Mr. Dabhade, nor do I have any enmityor any monetary transaction or borrowing/lending with him. Today, 13/01/2023,in the morning I am going to meet Mr. Dabhade. In connection with the remainingRs.5,000 out of the Rs.9,000 demanded by him for withdrawing the notice issuedto me and for not taking any action against me, I will go to the place indicated byhim and hold talks. If Mr. Dabhade himself or through anyone else demands andaccepts the remaining Rs.5,000 from me, please take legal action against him. I amalso submitting screenshots of the amounts transferred earlier through my PhonePeand a photocopy of the notice issued to me. After I lodged the above complaint, Iput my signature on it.In connection with verification of my complaint, Police Inspector ShriSandeep Rajput called two government panch witnesses on 11/01/2023 at theAnti-Corruption Bureau office, introduced them to me and informed that theirnames are: 1) Shri Ashok Radhakisan Harne, age 57 years, occupation service, Junior Assistant, Animal Husbandry Department, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 2)Shri Ganesh Fakirchand Darade, age 35 years, occupation service, Peon, AnimalHusbandry Department, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. I narrated my complaint orallyto the panchas. Thereafter, Police Inspector - Shri Rajput gave the typed complaintto the panchas to read. After the panchas read it, Police Inspector - Shri Rajput andthe panchas put their signatures on the complaint. Since I am going to meetDabhade Saheb on 13/01/2023, Police Inspector – Shri. Rajput gave confidentialityinstructions to me, the panchas and the trap team and directed us to remainpresent at the Anti-Corruption Bureau office on the morning of 13/01/2023, andthereafter permitted us to leave. Thereafter, on 13/01/2023 at around 08:15 a.m., I received a call fromShri Dabhade. We spoke and he told me, “I am at home, come quickly with themoney.” I told him I would reach in a short while. I immediately informed PoliceInspector - Shri Rajput about this and reached the Anti-Corruption Bureau office. Police Inspector - Rajput, the panchas and the trap team were present there. SinceShri Dabhade’s house is near Itkheda Chowk, Paithan Road, I proceeded on mymotorcycle and the trap team followed in their vehicles. We stopped a little beforeKanchanwadi, near Itkheda Chowk. As per instructions, a new memory card wasinserted in the voice recorder, it was switched on and placed in the left pocket ofmy shirt. I took Panch No. 1 Shri Harne with me on my motorcycle, went belowDabhade’s building, informed him that I had arrived, and he came downstairs. We {12} REVN 247 OF 2025met, discussed work-related matters, and in the presence of the panch hedemanded and agreed to accept the bribe amount of Rs.5,000. Thereafter, Ireturned to the place where the trap team was waiting, the voice recorder wasswitched off, and we all proceeded to the Anti-Corruption Bureau office, Aurangabad. I narrated the entire sequence to Police Inspector - Rajput. PoliceInspector - Rajput and the panchas listened to the conversation recorded in thevoice recorder and were also ensure that Shri Dabhade had demanded Rs.5,000.Thereafter, for the purpose of giving the bribe, I produced ten currency notes ofRs.500 denomination, totalling Rs.5,000. A demonstration of the properties ofanthranilic (anthracene) powder was given to me and the panchas. The notesproduced by me were applied with anthracene powder and kept in the front rightpocket of my pant. Thereafter, Police Inspector - Shri Rajput gave detailedinstructions to me, the trap team and both panchas regarding the trap operation. After the operation was planned, I again contacted Shri Dabhade. He told me, “Waiton the road going towards Nagar Naka from Baba Petrol Pump Chowk; I will comethere shortly and we will meet there.” Accordingly, I and Panch No. 1 Shri Harneproceeded on my motorcycle, and the trap team followed. We stopped at a safe spotbefore Baba Petrol Pump Chowk. As per instructions, Police Constable Gusingeinserted a new memory card in the voice recorder, switched it on and placed it inthe left pocket of my shirt. As directed by Police Inspector - Shri Rajput, I tookPanch No. 1 Shri Harne with me and reached the road going towards Nagar Nakafrom Baba Petrol Pump Chowk. Behind us, Police Inspector - Shri Rajput, the trapteam and Panch No. 2 Shri Darade took position in such a manner that no onewould suspect. After a short while, Shri Dabhade arrived there. After somediscussion, he personally accepted the bribe amount of Rs.5,000 from me with hisleft hand and kept it in the left rear pocket of his pant. Immediately thereafter, atabout 12:32 hrs, I gave the pre-arranged signal, upon which Police Inspector - ShriRajput along with the trap team and Panch No. 2 Shri Darade reached the spot. Police Inspector - Shri Rajput asked Shri Dabhade his name and address, to whichhe replied: Buddhabhushan Sukhdev Dabhade, age about 31 years, AssistantEngineer, Gallhati Medium Project, Shahapur Branch, Irrigation Department, Tq.Ambad, Dist. Jalna, resident of Flat No. 200, Amrut Sai Gold Star, Golwadi, Aurangabad. The bribe amount of Rs.5,000 accepted by Shri Dabhade was seized inthe presence of panchas, and the serial numbers and description of the said notesexactly matched the notes I had produced. Thus, on 13/01/2023 during the demand verification, Shri BuddhabhushanSukhdev Dabhade demanded Rs.5,000 as bribe from me in the presence of panchasfor withdrawing the notice issued to me and for not taking any action against me.As demanded, on 13/01/2023 at about 12:32 hrs, on the road going towards NagarNaka from Baba Petrol Pump Chowk, Aurangabad, Shri Dabhade personallyaccepted the bribe amount of Rs.5,000 from me in the presence of panchas. Therefore, I lodge this complaint against him for legal action.”(As translated by Sr. Translator, High Court, Aurangabad)16.It seems that after lodgment of complaint, ACB authoritiesswung into action, summoned panchas, introduced them tocomplainant and panchas verified the complaint and thereafter, both {13} REVN 247 OF 2025complainant as well as pancha were made to go together forverification of demand. Conversation between complainant andaccused was got recorded, its transcript as well as panchanama wasdrawn and thereafter, trap was laid on 13-01-2023 and was said tobe successful at 12:32 p.m. i.e. when accused was apprehended inthe vicinity of Baba Petrol Pump, Aurangabad i.e. after raisingdemand and accepting the same. 17.The principal grounds on which discharge is sought are that, there is false implication, there was no demand, due to grudge forissuing show cause notice for remaining absent and not doing work, complaint has been lodged with ulterior motive. That, there arecontradictions and variances as regards to date of complaint andthat, there is invalid sanction. Here, on going through the chargesheet, this Court has noticedthat after receipt of complaint, ACB authorities has summonedpanchas. In presence of panchas, demand verification is shown to bedone, its panchanama is on record. Conversation and transcript ofthe same are also part of chargesheet. This Court has noticedavailability of even certificate under Section 65B of the IndianEvidence Act. Final trap panchanama is also drawn and therefore, {14} REVN 247 OF 2025prima facie there is sufficient material to proceed against revisionist. 18.As rightly pointed out by learned APP, the aspect of validity ofsanction, ground of no scientific evidence, and aspect of actualdemand towards earlier dues, are to be dealt and decided at the timeof trial. Accused will have opportunity to put up his defence.19.At this juncture, this Court has sifted the chargesheet withlimited purpose to ascertain whether there is sufficiency of materialto make revisionist face trial and this Court has found prima faciematerial to make revisionist face trial. Numerous citations of Hon’bleApex Court and this Court are tried to be taken recourse to, but thesame cannot be appreciated at this stage, more particularly, whenthere is material raising grave suspicion regarding occurrence ofalleged offence. Consequently, there being no merits in the revision, the same is required to be dismissed. Hence, following order :ORDER Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGESPT