ALS-89-2019 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 89 OF 2019 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Sandip s/o Bapurao Narute, Age : 40 years, Occupation Service, R/o Khalegaon, Taluka Georai, District Beed. At Present R/o Ambad, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna. ... Respondent ..... Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for the Applicant-State. Mr. Pratik A. Bhosle, Advocate for the Respondent (through VC) ..... CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 20.08.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 21.08.2026 ORDER :- 1. As State is desirous and keen in filing appeal against judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.01.2019 passed by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Special (PCA) Case No.02 of 2018, instant application for leave to appeal has been pressed into service. 2026:BHC-AUG:37760 ALS-89-2019 -2- 2. Learned APP pointed out that in Trial Court, prosecution was lodged against accused/respondent herein for demanding bribe of Rs.1000/- in the capacity as Talathi for taking mutation entry. That, accordingly, complaint was received by ACB authorities, who planned trap by engaging independent witness P.W.2. That, necessary instructions were explained to them. There was use of voice recorder for verification of demand and thereafter main trap was laid. There is evidence of both complainant and shadow panch on the point of demand as well as acceptance, but learned Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the same and refused to accept the case of prosecution as proved. That, according to learned APP there is incorrect appreciation of evidence on the point of sanction also and as State has good case on merits, leave to file appeal is urged for. 3. In answer to above, learned Counsel for respondent/original accused justified the judgment and order of acquittal by pointing out that prosecution has miserably failed to prove sine qua non like demand and acceptance. According to him, there was no demand. Even prosecution witnesses including complainant has deposed about offer of bribe prior to any demand. That, complainant himself has stated that amount was kept on the table. Demand was said to be paid in the form of gesture and there was no verbal demand. That, all ALS-89-2019 -3- such crucial aspects prevailed over the Trial Court and thus, no error is committed by learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused. For want of merits, leave is urged to be refused. 4. Heard. Perused the evidence before Trial Court. 5. P.W.1 Ashok, the complainant, is examined at Exhibit-16. In the initial testimony though he stated that he had approached accused Talathi for mutating name of his father with regard to the well, and though he has stated that accused demanded Rs.1000/-, however, when exactly there was meeting between both of them and when initial demand was raised, has not been stated by him. 6. Though complainant speaks of he and panch made to carry voice recorder at the time of demand verification, in paragraph No.2 of his examination-in-chief, he has deposed about accused making indications through fingers like counting notes and raising one finger above. Therefore, no concrete meaning can be derived by said gestures. Further, regarding main trap, he has deposed in paragraph No.4 of his examination-in-chief that after entering the office of accused, he himself has asked accused whether he should give Rs.1000/- or Rs.500/-. Thus, apparently, prior to any demand, there ALS-89-2019 -4- is offer. Moreover, tainted currency is said to be kept on table and thereafter, complainant has come out. In paragraph No.9 of his cross- examination, omission is brought about accused making gestures. 7. On going through the evidence of shadow panch P.W.2, he too like complainant has stated about gestures made at the time of demand verification by raising fingers. Even regarding main trap, he deposed that when they approached accused, it is the complainant, who told the accused that he has brought the amount which was demanded. Thus, he also corroborates the complainant on the point that the offer of bribe was made prior to the demand. 8. Consequently, sine qua non like demand and acceptance are not proved. Further, as pointed out, the prosecution has adduced the evidence of P.W.3, the sanctioning authority. However, he was apparently working as a Sub-Divisional Officer and, during his cross- examination, he admitted that Exhibit-38 was the copy of the appointment order, which is under the signature of the Collector. Therefore, this witness was not competent to accord sanction. On this count also, the case of the prosecution has collapsed. 9. In the light of above discussion, there is no merit in the application and no purpose would be served by according leave with ALS-89-2019 -5- the above quality of evidence. No case being made out on merits, leave refused. Hence, the following order is passed :- ORDER I. Application stands rejected. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] scm