{1} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 74 OF 2016 The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Shillegaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. … Appellant (Orig. Complainant) Versus Ramnath S/o Parasram Nirmal, Age : 50 years, Occu. : Service, R/o. Police Station Shillegaon, Lasur Station, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. … Respondent (Orig. Accused) ….. Mr. S. G. Sangle, APP for Appellant – State Mr. Rajendrraa S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Vishal A. Chavan, Advocate for Respondent. ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 22 JANUARY, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 23 JANUARY, 2026 JUDGMENT : 1. In this appeal by State, there is challenging to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04-08-2015 passed by learned Special Judge (P. C. Act), Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad in Special Case (P.C.) No. 12 of 2012, acquitting the accused from charge under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the P. C. Act. 2026:BHC-AUG:2992 {2} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016 BRIEF CASE OF PROSECUTION 2. In brief, case of prosecution is that there was quarrel between mother of PW1 and one Dnyaneshwar Jadhav and others and so he accompanied his mother to lodge report at Shilllegaon Police Station. Accused, who was working as Head Constable, suggested that, if they want strong action to be taken against another side, they would have to pay bribe of Rs.2,000/-. When complainant told him, he had merely Rs.1100/-, accused accepted the same and asked complainant to bring remaining amount of Rs.900/-, however, on 11-11-2010, complainant approached ACB office and filed complaint Exh.25, on the basis of which, ACB authorities planned and executed trap, apprehended the accused, charge-sheeted him and he was made to face trial vide above sessions case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused. Hence, State has come up in appeal. SUBMISSIONS On behalf of appellant State : 3. Learned APP would point out that, prosecution had adduced evidence of in all four witnesses. According to him, PW1 Balu and PW3 Dattatraya, who are complainant and shadow pancha, have testified about demand. The contents of the complaint were narrated, {3} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016 however, learned APP fairly submitted that, at one point of time as complainant was not supporting, he was subjected to cross. However according to learned APP, the core of the prosecution case about demand had remained intact. That, evidence of PW3 shadow panch had also remained unshaken. 4. He further submitted that, investigating machinery after receipt of above complaint, undertook the exercise of getting verification done and only thereafter, main trap was laid and executed, wherein accused had demanded bribe as well as accepted it and on receiving signal to that extent, raiding party had apprehended the accused with the currency and as such, it is his submission that case of prosecution was proved beyond reasonable doubt, but according to him, there is erroneous appreciation by learned trial Judge. 5. It is his next submission that, here, sanction was duly obtained to prosecute the accused. Sanctioning Authority has also been examined and even learned trial court held so, but still there is acquittal. According to him, it is a result of incorrect appreciation and failure to consider the settled law. For said reasons, he urges to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment. {4} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016 On behalf of Respondent Accused : 6. Per contra, learned counsel for original accused - respondent herein would submit that, prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges. He strenuously submitted that, here, there was no corroboration to the initial demand by accused to complainant. He submitted that complainant and shadow pancha are not consistent. According to him, at the outset, demand itself has not been proved and therefore, even further case of acceptance and recover itself get knocked at the bottom. On this count, he took this court through the evidence of PW1 complainant and PW3 shadow panch and their cross examinations. 7. He next pointed out that, though complainant claimed that there was demand and acceptance, but independent witness like shadow pancha, according to him, has categorically answered in cross that he was not party to the alleged conversation of demand. Therefore, he would submit that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the very demand and taking recourse to the judgments cited, he justifies the order of acquittal and prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits. {5} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016 ANALYSIS 8. In the backdrop of above submissions, evidence is put to scrutiny and re-appreciated. PW1 Balu seems to be complainant and he is examined at Exh.24. As per his complaint, he has narrated that, for taking action against opposite party, accused, who was a Police Constable, demanded Rs.2,000/- and he made upfront payment of Rs.1100/- and agreed to pay remaining Rs.900/- later on, but instead as he was not willing to pay bribe, he lodged complaint Exh.25. He also deposed about Investigating Officer making him and pancha carry tape recorder for recording the conversation of demand so as to verify about it. The events which took place after approaching accused are narrated in paragraph 7, wherein he has stated that accused came on motorcycle, there were talks between him and accused about work and accused allegedly asked him whether he had made arrangement of money of Rs.900/- and when he affirmed about it, this witness states that accused refused to accept it asking him to come near xerox center and there again accused demanded money which was offered, and accepted and pocketed by the accused followed by relay of signal. However, while under cross, complainant {6} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016 has admitted that he had not heard the conversation between him and accused, which was recorded on tape recorder and of which panchanama was drawn. He is unable to state whether at the time of apprehension, accused was in uniform and what the nature of clothes which were on his person. 9. PW3 Dattatraya is the shadow pancha, who is examined at Exh.42. In his testimony he deposed about tape recorder arranged and given to PW1 and to be used at the time of demand and payment of bribe. Then he stated that when they approached accused in the police station, PW1 telephonically contacted accused and at that time, tape recorder was put on and complainant said to accused that they had come to police station, but accused from the other side allegedly informed that he was on leave and that he would come next day. Apparently, thus during conversation between complainant and accused in presence of this witness PW3 shadow panch, apparently there was no demand. While further facing in examination in chief, in paragraph 4, narrating about pre-trap panchanama, this witness has stated that he could not hear very conversation between complainant and accused as he was at some distance from them. {7} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016 Therefore, as pointed out that there is no corroboration to the tesimony of complainant on the point of demand. Further this witness, who is crucial witness, engaged for lending corroboration to testimony of complainant, as was not supporting to the prosecution, was on permission cross examined by learned APP, but he again answered that he did not hear the conversation. Consequently, PW3 shadow panch seems to have resiled and not supported prosecution case. 10. Further as pointed out, though it is a prosecution case that prior to the main trap, verification of demand got done, evidence of PW1 complainant itself is silent about any such exercise as he directly deposed about main trap. 11. Though efforts of recording conversation of demand between complainant and accused were done, such electronic equipment was not before the court. Further, even if there is valid sanction and though witness who accorded sanction, is examined, as held by trial court, here very crucial aspect of demand of bribe itself having come under shadow of doubt, case of prosecution is rendered doubtful. Law is fairly settled {8} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016 that unless demand of bribe or illegal gratification is proved, further story of prosecution about acceptance is rendered valueless. On this point the citation relied by learned counsel for respondent fairly applicable. 12. Learned counsel for respondent has specifically pointed out that Investigation machinery has not seized the very shirt of accused at the time of main trap in the pocket of which tainted currency was allegedly kept. Investigation Officer admits to that extent. Therefore, failure of Investigation machinery to place and play before the trial court the very tape recorder conversation as well as failure to seize the shirt of accused, demonstrates the casual attitude on the part of Investigation machinery while investigating a case of bribe. 13. Perused the judgment under challenge. It is noticed that learned trial court has evaluated the evidence of all four witnesses and has also tested the cross faced by these witnesses. Only on complete evaluation of substantive evidence, findings regarding failure of prosecution to prove the its case beyond reasonable doubt has been recorded. The view taken by trial court is the possible view view that could emerge even on re-appreciation. {9} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016 14. For above reason, indeed it is a fit case of extension of benefit of doubt to the accused. There being no merits, appeal deserves to dismissed. Accordingly, following order is passed : ORDER Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT