APPEAL-773-2015 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 773 OF 2015 The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon … Appellant Versus 1. Pravin Shantaram Mahale, Age : 36 years, Occu. : Service, R/o. Plot No.25, Usmanpura, Tilak Nagar, Aurangabad. 2. Prafulla Bharat Patil, Age : 30 years, R/o. Plot No.42, Mohan Nagar, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. … Respondents (Orig. Accused) ….. Mr. N. S. Tekale, APP for Appellant - State. Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Respondents. ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 28 APRIL 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 30 APRIL 2026 JUDGMENT : 1. The correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 11 of 2014 acquitting the accused respondent herein, from the charges under sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is under challenge by the State. 2026:BHC-AUG:19426 APPEAL-773-2015 -2- PROSECUTION CASE IN NUTSHELL IS AS UNDER 2. Prosecution was launched against the accused no.1 Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector serving at Sub Divisional R.T.O. Office and accused no.2 a private person, on the premise that, when de facto complainant PW1 Sagar, who ran a driving school, had approached accused no.1 for clearing permanent and learning licence, accused allegedly demanded total amount of Rs.2,600/-. As complainant was not willing to pay, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau office and PW3 P.I. Deshmukh planned and executed trap, apprehended both accused, filed complaint, investigated the same and on its completion, charge sheeted both the accused, who were made to face trial vide Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 11 of 2014 before the learned Special Court, Jalgaon. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the prosecution, vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2015, both accused came to be acquitted from all the charges. Hence, the instant appeal by State. SUBMISSIONS on behalf of Appellant – State : 3. According to learned APP, accused no.1 an Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in R.T.O. Office, Jalgaon and there is no dispute to that extent. That, he had raised demand of bribe of Rs.2,600/- for signing and clearing permanent and learning driving licence tendered by de facto APPEAL-773-2015 -3- complainant, who was running a driving school and was authorized to apply for issuance of licence. That, de facto complainant has in his evidence narrated about approaching accused no.1 for causing signature over the papers, but for doing work, accused had demanded bribe. That, de facto complainant deposed about approaching Anti Corruption Bureau and he also testified about the verification on demand being done, followed by drawing of pre-trap panchanama. That, witness has also stated about accused no.1 raising demand, but directing de facto complainant to make payments to accused no.2. That, though accused no.2 accepted the amount, it was on behalf of accused no.1. 4. Learned APP would submit that, even shadow panch has supported complainant about accompanying him to meet accused and he was party to the conversation between complainant and accused no.1. That, he was also party to the meeting with accused no.2, who had accepted amount on behalf of accused no.1, as such, it is his submission that, there was both demand as well as acceptance. However, according to him, in spite of such evidence being on record, there is incorrect appreciation of evidence, resulting into acquittal and thereby he seeks indulgence of this Court by allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment. On behalf of Respondent :- 5. Learned counsel for respondent accused would justify the APPEAL-773-2015 -4- order of acquittal by pointing out that prosecution failed to prove both demand as well as acceptance and prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits. EVIDENCE ON RECORD 6. In the light of above discussion, evidence led by the prosecution in trial Court is visited and re-appreciated. Apparently, there is oral account of complainant PW1 at Exh.19, oral account of shadow panch (PW2) at Exh.23 and evidence of Investigating Officer (PW3) at Exh.36. As regards to documentary evidence is concerned, there is complaint at Exh.20, bribe demand verification at Exh.25, pre-trap panchanama at Exh.26 and spot panchanama at Exh.28 and sanction order at Exh.32. 7. It is fairly settled legal position that, to attract the charges, prosecution is expected to substantiate that there was demand followed by acceptance. These are sine qua non for bringing home the charges and in the light of such requirement, evidence on record is re-appreciated. PW1 de facto complainant at Exh.19, in examination-in-chief deposed that, he was running a driving school named and styled as “Sachin Motor Driving School” and he had licence to train the candidates. That, he used to consult accused no.1 an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in R.T.O. office for obtaining driving licence and claims to have filed proceedings of APPEAL-773-2015 -5- 58 learning driving licence and 22 permanent driving licence. According to him, on 14.12.2010, accused no.1 told him to come at R.T.O. office with Rs.2,600/- and that he would issue licence, and therefore, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged complaint at Exh.20. In his further testimony, he deposed about arrangement of panchas, he informing them about his grievance and then the procedure taken by the Investigating Officer for recording conversation and about Investigating Officer explaining the procedure of demonstration of anthracene powder to the currency notes. In paragraph 6 he deposed about proceedings to the R.T.O. office after drawing the pre-trap panchanama while in the company of panch Amol Patil. He further deposed that when they entered the R.T.O. office and met accused no.1 and told that he had brought papers for signature, but accused no.1 told him that he should first bring the signature of Bang Saheb, and thereafter, he would cause his signature and when he returned back to accused no.1 with signature of Bang Saheb, accused no.1 directed him to pay amount to accused no.2, who was sitting in Maruti 800 Car at the distance of about 20 feet and accordingly, he went to accused no.2 and told him that accused no.1 had asked him to pay the amount to accused no.2, who accepted Rs.2,300/- and followed by relay of signal. However, while under cross examination, in paragraph 8, he admitted that, on 15.12.2010 i.e at the time of bribe demand verification, APPEAL-773-2015 -6- he had learnt that work of proposals of licence was with Inspector Bang. He admitted that it did happen after hearing conversation that Dy.S.P. Deshmukh also came to know that accused persons have not raised demand of bribe at the time of bribe demand verification, but still Investigating Officer thought that accused may demand bribe, and hence, he further decided to arrange trap in the afternoon. 8. Further in paragraph 9 and 10 of the cross examination, omissions are brought regarding conversation at the time of bribe demand verification that “when we met accused no.1 and told him about he having brought the papers for signatures and at that time accused no.1 had asked him whether he had brought the money and he telling accused no.1 that he had not brought the money and further said that in the afternoon he would bring the money and that time accused no.1 said ‘ok’ and further asked him to come in the afternoon. There is also omission in his statement to the ACB Officer on the point that after entering R.T.O. office and meeting accused no.1, he told accused no.1 that he had brought the papers for his signature and that time he told him to bring signature of Bang Saheb, and thereafter, he will sign the papers. Similarly, there are omissions about he retuning back to accused no.1 and accused no.1 asking him to pay accused no.2. He told accused no.2 that accused no.1 had asked him to pay amount to accused no.2 and after accepting bribe amount, accused no.2 keeping the APPEAL-773-2015 -7- amount in his left pocket. He has answered that, he is unable to state why above facts are not finding place in the statement to ACB officer. Therefore, above omissions are material omissions. Further while under cross examination, in paragraph 12, de fact complainant has admitted that, at the time of trap, voice recorder was not functioning properly, and therefore, conservation recorded was not clear. He further admitted in paragraph 13 that, at the time of trap, no conversation had taken place between accused no.1 and accused no.2. 9. PW2 shadow panch, in his initial examination-in-chief stated about visiting ACB office, meeting complainant, hearing his story, causing signature over complaint, preparation of panchanama at Exh.25. In paragraph 5 he deposed about he being instructed to go with complainant to R.T.O. office and de facto complainant instructed to pay on demand and he himself being instructed to keep watch. In paragraph 6 of his examination-in-chief, he deposed that, after pre-trap panchanama he and de facto complainant went to R.T.O. office and de facto complainant meeting accused no.1, having a discussion with him about the work, at that time accused no.1 asking him to meet Bang Saheb, who was sitting on opposite side and after meeting Bang Saheb, he and de facto complainant again going toward accused no.1 and there de facto complainant had “some discussions” with accused no.1, and thereafter, they both going towards APPEAL-773-2015 -8- accused no.2 who was standing outside the building and there also some discussion taking place between complainant and accused no.2 and accused no.2 demanding bribe and even accepted it, followed by relay of signal. While under cross, in paragraph 10, he answered that at the time of bribe demand verification, when de facto complainant and accused no.1 were talking, he himself went for drinking water and so he is unable to state whether any conversation is recorded in voice recorder. He further answered that after hearing the conversation, he became sure that accused no.1 had not demanded any bribe. In further cross, he admitted that de facto complainant had not submitted any documents either to accused no.1 or accused no.2. ANALYSIS 10. Therefore, on complete re-appreciation of evidence of complainant and shadow panch, firstly, complainant has admitted that prior to trap, when demand verification was done and conversation was recorded, the same was not clear. Further, complainant has admitted that in R.T.O. office after approaching accused no.1 he merely asked him to first go to Officer Bang and obtained his signature. Complainant in his cross examination has admitted that he realized that main signatory was Officer Bang and not accused no.1. Further, from the story narrated by complainant about main trap, it is emerging that there is no distinct evidence to show APPEAL-773-2015 -9- that accused no.1 and accused no.2 has nexus with each other and that accused no.2 was aware that he was to accept the bribe on behalf of accused no.1. It appears that, according to complainant, accused no.1 directed complainant to make payments to accused no.2, who was sitting in a Maruti 800 Car, but as contrary to it, shadow panch, who was in his very company has stated that, some discussion took place between complainant and accused no.1 and thereafter they both went to accused no.2, who was standing near the building of R.T.O. office. His story was therefore distinct than PW1 complainant. Further answers given by the shadow panch in cross examination clearly show that he was not party to the actual conversation between de facto complainant and accused no.1 as he merely speaks about some discussion taking place between both of them. He was also unaware of the actual conversation which allegedly took place between complainant and accused no.2. 11. As stated above, when there is no evidence to show that accused no.1 and accused 2 are connected with each other and that accused no.2 was to accept bribe on behalf of accused no.1, mere acceptance by accused no.2 would not bind accused no.1 also, more particularly when the prosecution witnesses are admitting that accused no.1 had not raised any demand. For above reasons, case of prosecution not being free from APPEAL-773-2015 -10- doubt, learned trial Court does not seem to have committed any error in granting acquittal. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Tandale