*1* revst125o18 rtf IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1256 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.125 OF 2018 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.125 OF 2018 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS RAJU BHAGWAN JADHAV. … Shri Shirish G. Sangle, Addl. GP, for the applicant/ State. ... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 18 August 2026 P. C. :- 1. This application is filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking condonation of 66 days delay caused in filing the Revision Application against the order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna, below exhibit 5 in Special Case (PCA) No.2/2017. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. Criminal Application No.1256/2018 stands disposed 2026:BHC-AUG:38238 *2* revst125o18 rtf of accordingly. 3. Criminal Revision Application is taken up for hearing. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the respondent herein i.e. accused Raju Jadhav was working as a teacher in Vinay Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Jalgaon (Sapkal), Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna. It is alleged that the complainant Satish Nemane approached him for issuance of a duplicate Transfer Certificate (T.C.), for which the accused demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification. The complainant, therefore, approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on 23.07.2014 and lodged a complaint. The ACB recorded the conversation and conducted the necessary pre-trap formalities. On 24.07.2014, a trap was laid and the complainant paid Rs.500/- to the accused, who allegedly accepted the amount. The tainted currency was immediately recovered from the accused. The ACB also seized the affidavit, photocopy of the original T.C., duplicate T.C. and other relevant documents. Statements of the Principal and Clerk of the school were recorded and, after completion of investigation and obtaining sanction for *3* revst125o18 rtf prosecution, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case is registered as Special Case (PCA) No.2/2017 before the learned Special Judge, Jalna. 5. The respondent/ accused filed an application exhibit-5 for discharge. The contention of the accused was that he was working in the school, which is non grant in aid school. The Management of the school itself, by issuing appropriate resolution, has authorized the accused to collect fees and charges for issuing a school leaving certificate. Therefore, the accused has committed no illegality by accepting Rs.500/- from the complainant and therefore, that amount cannot be considered as bribe amount. As such, the respondent/ accused be discharge from the alleged offences. 6. The learned Special Judge, by impugned order dated 07.11.2017, allowed the application and discharged the accused from offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Special Judge, while considering the material on record, held that even *4* revst125o18 rtf assuming that the respondent was a public servant, the material did not prima facie establish that the amount of Rs.500/- received by him was illegal gratification, as the amount was collected pursuant to the directions of the school management towards issuance of duplicate T.C.The Headmaster of the school has also supported the contention of the accused and the Management of the school is also supporting the stand of the accused and clearly stated that they directed the accused to collect fees for issuing duplicate TC. 7. Learned APP appearing for the applicant/ State submits that learned Special Judge has committed grave error in discharging the accused. He submits that at the initial stage of framing of charge, the Court is not concerned with the proof, but with strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence which if put to trial, could prove him guilty. The Court is required to see that material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. Final test of guilt is not to be applied at this stage. 8. Learned APP further submits that papers of investigation prima facie show that there is demand and *5* revst125o18 rtf acceptance of bribe by the accused. Therefore, burden is on the defence to rebut presumption laid down under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by leading cogent evidence. Learned Special Judge ought not to have given unnecessary importance to the documents produced by the defence, which were yet to be proved. Learned Special Judge has committed grave error while discharging the accused. Learned APP, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. With the help of learned APP, I have gone through the material on record and the impugned order. Perusal of the charge-sheet discloses that the accused was working as an Assistant Teacher in private school, which is being run on ‘permanent no-grant aid’ basis. The said school is run by Matoshri Bhagubai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal situated at village Jalgaon (Sapkal), Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna. Thus, the accused is employee of the said Management. The prosecution claims that the accused was working on the post of Assistant Teacher in secondary school run by the said Management, therefore, he is public servant in pursuance of definition under *6* revst125o18 rtf Section 2(c) of the PC Act. The prosecution, therefore, claims that the amount of Rs.500/- accepted by the accused from the complainant is bribe amount and therefore, the demand and acceptance of bribe is established. In view of the charge of the prosecution, it is required to see that whether, the accused is really a public servant and whether, the demanded amount can be termed as bribe amount, considering the provisions of the PC Act. 10. According to the accused, at the relevant point of time, he was working on unaided division of the school meaning thereby, the said school is not receiving any grant from the Government. As such, the said school is totally dependent upon donations and fees received from public. It has come on record that the Management has passed the resolution thereby, fixing amount of Rs.500/- as fees for issuing duplicate TC. The Headmaster of the school gave an order to the accused for issuing/ preparing duplicate TC. According to the accused, since the Managing Committee of the school is the appointing and removing authority of the accused, therefore, it is competent authority within the meaning of Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act. *7* revst125o18 rtf The competent authority i.e. managing committee of the school has refused to grant sanction in this case and replied to the Anti Corruption Bureau that the accused was authorized to take fees as per the directions of the managing committee and therefore, he was not collecting any bribe amount. Therefore, the managing committee did not accord sanction. 11. After rejecting to accord sanction, the Superintendent of Police, ACB, again wrote the letter to the Managing Committee of the school, however, the Managing Committee stood firm on its stand. It is brought on record that the School Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, has issued the circular dated 05.11.2015 and thereby, designated the Director of Education, Pune as the competent authority for all teachers serving in private schools for all purposes. According to the prosecution, the said Director of Education has accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused on 07.12.2016. After obtaining sanction, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused. However, it is pertinent to note here that the competent authority came to be designated vide circular dated 05.11.2015 whereas, the incident of trap of bride has taken place on *8* revst125o18 rtf 24.07.2014. Thus, on 24.07.2014, the competent authority was not entitled to accord sanction for prosecution. 12. As stated earlier, the respondent/ accused was working in an unaided private school and he was following orders of the managing committee of the school. Therefore, in my view, the alleged demand of Rs.500/- for issuing duplicate TC cannot be considered as bribe. The respondent/ accused was discharging his duties as per the directions given by the school management and his superiors and, therefore, his act cannot be said to fall within the meaning of offence under Sections 7, 13(1) (d)and 13(2) of the PC Act. 13. On the aspect of according sanction, as already discussed herein above, the Director of Education, Pune, was designated as competent authority vide circular dated 05.11.2015. However, the said circular cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect as the incident in question took place prior to issuance of the said circular. Moreover, whether the said competent authority is also the competent authority for teachers, who are working in private unaided schools, or not, is another aspect which this Court, in the peculiar *9* revst125o18 rtf facts of this case, would not want to go into detail. However, the fact remains that the demand made by the accused cannot be termed as bribe amount. 14. On cumulative consideration of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge has not committed any patent illegality or perversity in extending the benefit of discharge to the respondent. The resolution of the school management authorising collection of Rs.500/- towards issuance of duplicate T.C., the subsequent direction of the Principal to the respondent to collect the said amount and the stand consistently taken by the Management that the amount was collected towards school fees, prima facie provide plausible and lawful explanation for receipt of the said amount. In such circumstances, the material on record does not disclose, at the threshold, a clear and unimpeachable case that the respondent demanded or accepted Rs.500/- as illegal gratification. Mere recovery of the amount, without establishing that it was received as illegal gratification, cannot by itself constitute sufficient basis to compel the respondent to face the prosecution. The learned Special Judge has, therefore, committed no jurisdictional error or *10* revst125o18 rtf perversity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order discharging the respondent deserves to be maintained. Hence, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )