APPEAL-236-2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.236 OF 2012 The State of Maharashtra, Through Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad … Appellant Versus Ashok S/o. Lalchand Pawar, Age : 52 years, Occu. : Talathi, R/o. Teli Galli, Khandala, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad … Respondent. [Orig. Accused] ….. Mr. P. P. Dawalkar, APP for Appellant – State. Ms. Monica Bagwe h/f.Mr.C.P. Sengaonkar, Advocate for Respondent. ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 18 MARCH 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 24 MARCH 2026 JUDGMENT : 1. In this appeal, State takes an exception to the judgment and order of acquittal passed on 28.03.2011 in Special Case No. 10 of 2006 acquitting present respondent from charges under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. In brief, case of prosecution in trial court is that, PW2 complainant after purchasing land in Gut No. 91 of village Baigaon, Tq. Vaijapur had approached accused a Talathi for mutating his name 2026:BHC-AUG:12435 APPEAL-236-2012 -2- in the revenue record. After several visits, accused put up demand of Rs.1,000/- for doing the said work, but on negotiations, brought down the figure to Rs.300/-. However, as complainant was not willing to pay bribe, he approached with Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged complaint at Exh.11. On the basis of which, PW4 Dy.S.P. Thorat planned trap, executed it, apprehended accused, charge sheeted him and accused was finally made to face trial vide above special case, which ended up in acquittal. Hence the appeal by state. SUBMISSIONS On behalf of State : 3. Learned APP would point out that, prosecution had established the charges beyond reasonable doubt. That, there was convincing evidence of complainant on both the demand as well as acceptance and his testimony found support from independent shadow panch (PW3). That, in spite of facing cross, core of prosecution has remained undisturbed, however, still learned trial Court noticed some minor contradictions and extended the benefit of the same to the accused. He would point out that, here, evidence of sanctioning authority (PW1) was duly examined, and therefore, all requirement for bringing home the charges were available in the evidence, but merely due to incorrect appreciation of evidence and failure to consider law, trial ended up in acquittal, and therefore, he APPEAL-236-2012 -3- prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. On behalf of Respondent : 4. Per contra, learned counsel for accused would justify the order of acquittal by pointing out that, at the outset, there was no application for carrying out mutation entry, and as such, there is no evidence about any work with accused a Talathi or further failure to do it, and rather putting a demand of bribe. She pointed out that, here, Investigating Officer has not carried out verification of demand prior to the trap. That, further complainant and shadow panch are inconsistent on multiple counts and the same is reflected in the judgment passed by learned trial Court. She also pointed out that even otherwise, acceptance is not proved, because admittedly recovery of tainted currency is not from the person of accused, but from the mattress. That, both complainant and shadow panch admitted that, in absence of accused they had waited him for one hour, and as such, there was obvious possibility of planting currency or falsely implicating him. For above reasons, he justified the order of acquittal and prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT 5. On the lines of above submissions, evidence on record is APPEAL-236-2012 -4- put to scrutiny. In the light of the nature of accusation and the charge, at the threshold, it is to be seen whether there was a demand and acceptance, and whether complainant’s evidence finds support from independent witness PW3 so as to hold the charges proved. In the light of such requirement, a brief account of evidence of complaint and shadow panch is reproduced. PW2 Balu is the complainant, who has deposed at Exh.10 regarding he approaching office of Talathi, meeting him and being asked by accused to come after 15 days, and accordingly he going, but again asked to come after 08 days. According to him, twice thrice he visited the office of accused, and therefore, finally he visited the residential house of accused at village Khandala and there it is alleged that, accused made demand of Rs.1,000/-, but on negotiations, figure was settled to Rs.300/-. According to complainant, accused asked him to come with the said amount at his residence on the next day, but complainant approached Anti Corruption Bureau and gave complaint (Exh.11). Then he narrated about independent panch being called and they both being given necessary instructions, and thereafter, in paragraph 6 he stated that, after drawing pre-trap panchanama, he and panch went to the house of accused. According to him, after visiting house of accused, they were made to shift in one room wherein mattress was spread on the APPEAL-236-2012 -5- floor. Accused came and allegedly asked complainant whether the amount was brought. Accordingly the tainted currency was removed, and the accused asked complainant to keep it on newspaper and accordingly it was done. After which, accused lifted the newspaper along with the currency notes and made the currency to slide on the mattress. After which, pre-determined signal was given. While under cross complainant has answered that, he had gathered information about procedure of effecting mutation entry and admitted that it can be done only on certification of Circle Officer. According to him, during his third visit to accused, bribe amount was demanded. He answered that he did not verify 7/12 extract i.e. before keeping amount in the newspaper. In paragraph no. 9, he answered that the newspaper was in Marathi and according to him, it was not on the mattress when they had been there. Rather according to him, accused had brought it with him. He answered that when accused was caught, at that time, he was sitting on the mattress. He is unable to state whether Investigating Officer collected the bed-sheet. PW3 Shankar shadow panch, in his evidence at Exh.13, narrated about visiting Anti Corruption Bureau office, being introduced to complainant, signing the complaint. Regarding the events of trap, he deposed in paragraph no. 4 that after alighting from vehicle, he and complaint walked to the house and knock the APPEAL-236-2012 -6- the doors, which was answered by a boy, and thereafter, they made to sit on the floor having mattress. According to him, accused came and also sat on the mattress. According to him, complainant asked about 7/12 extract, but at that time, accused told that it was not ready as he had not given money and now that if he gives it, his 7/12 extract would be prepared. Complainant took out the wad of notes and kept it on the mattress in front of accused. Thereafter, accused kept Sakal newspaper over the tainted currency. After which, the signal was relayed. While under cross, in paragraph no.12 he admitted that, he had referred the panchanama prior to deposing. ANALYSIS On minute scrutiny of evidence of complainant and this witness i.e. shadow panch, it is clearly emerging that, they are not consistent for the reason that, according to complainant, while sitting in the room of accused at his residence, after asking the accused about 7/12 extract, accused allegedly directly questioned whether he brought money, and when accused asked him to give it to him, the currency was kept on the newspaper, which the accused lifted along with the currency and made the currency notes slide to corner of the mattress. APPEAL-236-2012 -7- But, PW3 gives a distinct version, as according to him, when complainant allegedly stated that he has not received the 7/12 extract yet, after which accused told that it is not ready and it would be ready after amount is paid and it to be ready by Monday. Similarly, according to PW3 shadow panch, after above conversation, complainant has said that, he has brought the money and saying so, he kept the wad of currency on the mattress and this witness does not speak about currency being placed in the newspaper as is stated by complainant. Consequently, as submitted and as held by learned trial court, in spite of being together, witnesses are not consistent. Rather their testimonies suggest accused has not accepted the currency, but it was placed on either newspaper or on mattress. Therefore, apparently currency was not recovered from the person of accused. 6. Second variance, as pointed out, the testimony of above two witnesses is that, according to PW2 complainant, he relayed signal by first drinking water and by making gargle, but according to PW3 shadow panch, the complainant was asked to give pre- determined signal by etching on the back with the left hand. Therefore, even on the point of relay of signal, witnesses are not consistent. APPEAL-236-2012 -8- 7. Admittedly, another panch no.2 namely Balya had apparently picked up the tainted currency from the spot and not from the possession of accused. But, apparently, there are no anthracene traces to hands of panch no.2 Balya. This also contributes to the credibility of prosecution story on the point of recovery. 8. Prosecution has put up a defence of planting money. Admittedly, as stated above, currency is not found on the person or possession of the accused. For above reasons, story of prosecution is rendered doubtful. 9. Therefore, for the above reasons, the evidence of prosecution is full of variances, contradictions and on account of inconsistency between testimony of PW2 complainant and PW3 shadow panch, story of prosecution on the point of demand, for the above stated reasons, does not inspire confidence. 10. Perused the order. Learned trial Court seems to have taken into account the entire substantive evidence of prosecution witness, more particularity PW2 complainant and PW3 shadow panch, and has taken note of the contradictions, omissions and variance. Finding the case not proved beyond reasonable doubt, benefits seems to have extended. Hence, the following order is passed: APPEAL-236-2012 -9- ORDER The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale