APPEAL-351-2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through Anti Corruption Bureau, District Jalgaon. … Appellant Versus Sona S/o. Magan Dhangar, Age : 44 years, Occu. : Service, Police Head Constable B. No. 1008, Yawal Police Station, District Jalgaon. … Respondent. [Orig. Accused] ….. Mr. B.B. Bhise, APP for Appellant – State. Mr. M.A. Tandale, Advocate for Respondent. ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 17 MARCH 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 18 MARCH 2026 JUDGMENT : 1. In this appeal by State, there is challenge to the judgment and order dated 31.10.2009 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jalgaon in Special Case No. 13 of 2007 acquitting the respondent from charges under section 7, 13(1) (d) read with section13(2) of P.C. Act. 2. In short, it is the case of prosecution that, for avoiding action, on account of receipt of complaint from S.T. Driver, accused a Constable, demanded bribe of Rs.500/-. Complainant as was not 2026:BHC-AUG:11687 APPEAL-351-2010 -2- willing to pay bribe, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau, who entertained his complaint, planned and executed trap, and thereafter, charge sheeted accused. Accused was made to face trial vide above special case, in which prosecution adduced evidence of in all four witnesses and also relied on documentary evidence. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial Court reached to a finding that prosecution had failed to adduce cogent, convincing and reliable evidence, and thereafter, acquitted accused, which is the subject matter of instant appeal. 3. Learned APP pointed out that, there is no dispute that accused a constable was a public servant. That, to avoid any action against complainant on the basis of complaint received from S.T. driver, there was demand of bribe. That, there was prompt lodgment of complaint to that extent. According to him, Anti Corruption Authorities i.e. PW4 planned trap, summoned and arranged panchas and necessary instructions were given to complainant as well as shadow panch about the procedure of trap. 4. He further submitted that, both complainant and shadow panch in their evidence had deposed about demand being made by accused. That, currency was found in possession of accused and as such, it is his submission that there is both demand as well as APPEAL-351-2010 -3- acceptance. 5. He further pointed out that, learned trial Court has already held that sanction was accorded by competent authority that too after due application of mind and therefore sanction to be valid. Lastly he submitted that, there is incorrect appreciation of evidence of complainant as well as shadow panch and some minor variances are taken into account for disbelieving the case of prosecution and hence he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. 6. Learned counsel for respondent accused would support the judgment and order of learned trial Court by pointing out that, initial demand has not been proved by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. Moreover, complainant and shadow panch are not consistent and are at variance on material counts. Therefore, learned trial Court refused to rely on their testimony. He pointed out that, defence was of thrusting, and even defence witness was examined by accused, and as such, learned trial Court committed no error in acquitting the accused. 7. Heard. Perused the record. Re-appreciated the evidence. As usual evidence of complainant and shadow panch is of significance. More particularly, complainant being interested APPEAL-351-2010 -4- witness, there has to be sufficient corroboration from shadow panch, who is independent witness. Keeping such legal requirements in mind, evidence is put to security, it is noticed that, firstly complainant had telephonic conversation with accused during which demand was said to be raised. However, CDR and SDR has not been collected in this case. 8. Further, when complainant and shadow panch were in each other’s company, they were expected to lend support to each other, but that is not so in this case. According to complainant, he and panch walked to the police station and went inside the police station i.e. in the lock up room. In paragraph no.8 of the examination in chief, he narrated the events that took place inside the police station. According to him, accused asked him whether his work was done as told. Therefore, this does not amount to demand of bribe and such statement is ambiguous leading to various inferences. Further according to him, he paid tainted currency, which accused accepted and initially kept it on his lap, and thereafter put it in the pocket. Whereas, PW2 shadow panch, who was said to be in his company, does not narrate such sequence. On the contrary he states that, after phone call being made by complainant, they initially went towards the police station by walk and as accused was not meet there, they waited there, but accused did not come there. Therefore, as APPEAL-351-2010 -5- submitted, witnesses have not consistent about the sequence of events. That apart, in paragraph no. 20 of the cross examination of complainant, he admitted that, his conversation with complainant on phone was not heard by shadow panch. Some material omissions are brought in paragraph no. 21 like “have you brought as told”; saying to accused money is brought and where it should be paid. Similar omissions are also brought in paragraph no. 24 i.e. post trap during which raiding party asked panch, who accepted the money as he stated that in his presence this was not asked. He also admitted that, in his statement to police he had not informed that accused accepted the money and keeping on the lap. 9. As regards to PW2 is concerned, he is the shadow panch, but in his examination in chief, in paragraph no. 6, he stated that, when he accompanied complainant near Falaknagar, he himself and complainant went towards S.T.D. booth and from there complainant had talked on telephone and he learnt from complainant that accused called near the police station, and therefore, they went towards police station, but in spite of waiting there, accused did not come there, and therefore complainant and he entered the police station. According to this witness, inside the police station, accused asked whether amount has been brought and to pay it, such is not the version of complainant. Further according to him, after accepting the tainted APPEAL-351-2010 -6- currency, accused directing pocketed it i.e. it was not kept on the lap initially after acceptance as is stated by complainant. In examination in chief, he has improvised that accused asked complainant to come near the gate of police station. In paragraph no. 20 of the examination-in-chief itself, he stated that, after entering the police station, complainant on his own accord first talked to accused “Dada I have brought money and whether he would accept it”. He also admitted that, pant of accused was not subjected to examination to find traces of anthracene powder. 10. Therefore, what is emerging from the above evidence of both the witnesses is that, here PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow panch are not consistent. They are at variance on material counts as discussed above. 11. Here, accused seems to have adduced evidence of DW1 Somnath to probabilize the defence of thrusting. Nothing adverse was involved in his cross by learned APP. This witness has stated about saying two persons approaching complainant while he was working and one of them keeping currency on his lap. Therefore, here, by adducing witness working in the same police station, case of thrusting has been probabilized. 12. Consequently, here, though sanction is said to be valid, APPEAL-351-2010 -7- for above reasons, case of prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Crucial witnesses like complainant and shadow panch are inconsistent and are at variance on material counts rendering story of prosecution doubtful. 13. Perused the judgment. It seems that, learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence and thereafter noticed above shortfalls in the prosecution case. The view taken by learned trial Court is the only possible view that could emerge even on re- appreciation of evidence. Consequently, no case being made out, hence, the following order is passed : - ORDER The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale