ALS-88-2020 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL BY STATE NO. 88 OF 2020 The State of Maharashtra Through Anti Corruption Bureau, Beed, District Beed. … Appellant Versus Raosaheb Bhimrao Neharkar, Age : Adult, Occu : Service as Police Head Constable, Police Station Dharur, Under Police Outpost Adas, Taluka Kaij, District Beed. … Respondent (Orig. Accused) ….. Mrs. Vaishali Dama, APP for Applicant-State. Mr. M. S. Karad h/f Mr. A. D. Choure, Advocate for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 12.06.2026 Pronounced on : 17.06.2026 JUDGMENT : 1. Dissatisfied by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.10.2019 in Special Case No. 4 of 2012 passed by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, the State is hereby seeking leave to file appeal. 2. Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Beed entertained complaint of PW1 Gorakh Jogdand that, for avoiding initiation of chapter 2026:BHC-AUG:23607 ALS-88-2020 -2- proceedings against his father for indulging in selling illicit liquor, there was demand of Rs.1000/-. On the basis of said complaint, PW4 arranged pancha, gave necessary instructions and made shadow pancha accompany complainant with voice recorder and after conversation of demand was verified, main trap was laid during which there was demand as well as acceptance by accused, who came to be arrested and after investigation, chargesheeted and finally tried by learned Special Court for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act]. By judgment and order dated 22.10.2019, learned trial court acquitted the accused from all the charges. Aggrieved by the same, intending to file appeal, the State has preferred instant leave application. 3. Learned APP would submit that, complainant, a mason, was approached by accused, a constable, with a threat to implicate and involve his father in sell of illicit liquor and to initiate action of chapter proceedings and to avoid the same, bribe amount of Rs.1000/- was demanded. She further pointed out that, on receipt of complaint to that extent from PW1, trap was planned by ACB authorities. She further pointed out that, prior to main trap, PW1 complainant was sent with shadow pancha PW2 for verification of demand and they both had carried voice recorder in which ALS-88-2020 -3- conversation between complainant and accused was recorded comprising of demand and therefore, on ascertainment of demand, it is her submission that, further trap was planned and also successfully executed. 4. According to her, complainant’s evidence finds support from the evidence of shadow pancha PW2. That, they both are consistent on the point of demand verification as well as demand made during main trap by accused and tainted currency accepted by him. Therefore, it is her submission that, essentials like demand and acceptance were duly proved by prosecution. However, according to her, on a stray admission of complainant that he had initially borrowed loan from accused, learned trial court has accepted said defence raised by accused and has acquitted the accused. She further pointed out that, when trial court has itself observed that the testimony of complainant and shadow pancha was consistent and inspiring confidence, then the same ought to have been accepted and relied for returning guilt, but learned trial court failed to do so. According to her, even when there were no variances, trial court has attributed variances in the testimony of complainant and shadow pancha. Thus, according to her, there is incorrect appreciation of evidence. ALS-88-2020 -4- 5. She further submitted that here, sanctioning authority was examined as PW3 and even trial court recorded a finding that sanction is perfectly legal and valid, but still case of prosecution is disbelieved by raising doubt over testimony of complainant and shadow pancha and rather accepting the defence. Consequently, it is her submission that, prosecution has a good case on merits and so she prays for leave to file appeal. 6. In answer to above, learned counsel for accused, while defending the judgment and order of acquittal, pointed out that, demand and acceptance is not proved. According to him, amount demanded and even accepted was a previous hand-loan transaction of which there is admission by complainant. According to him, complainant’s evidence has no corroboration. He therefore justifies the order of acquittal and prays to refuse leave. 7. In the light of above submissions, evidence on record is examined. Case of prosecution seems to be rested on the testimony of four witnesses, i.e. PW1 complainant at Exhibit 23; PW2 shadow pancha at Exhibit 27; PW3 sanctioning authority at Exhibit 33 and finally PW4 Investigating Officer at Exhibit 45. ALS-88-2020 -5- 8. At this stage, it is to be seen whether there is demand as well as acceptance and whether complainant’s testimony finds support and corroboration from the shadow pancha as they together are party to the event of demand as well as acceptance. 9. Complainant in para 1 speaks about accused meeting him in the vicinity of bus stand on 11.02.2012, inquiring about his father, further saying that he is to be arrested for filing chapter case and if amount of Rs.1000/- is paid, no action of chapter case would be taken. Therefore, this witness approached ACB office Beed on 15.02.2012. In para 2 he deposed about pancha PW2 accompanying him to the police chowky with a voice recorder and during said conversation, accused allegedly asked what happened about his Rs.1000/-, which complainant claims to have assured to give him. After said conversation in voice recorder was heard, he deposed the further procedure taken by ACB authorities of applying anthracene powder to the currency. In para 3 he narrated the events which again took place at police station wherein he deposed that, he and PW2 entered police chowky and that time accused asked what had happened about his Rs.1000/-, to which complainant allegedly said that he shall give it and he handed over Rs.1000/- to accused, which was accepted and ALS-88-2020 -6- kept by accused in his right back pocket after which signal was relayed followed by trap. This witness seems to have been cross-examined regarding his visit to ACB office to lodge complaint. Questions are put about his father, about second visit to police station and about events which took place at police station, Dharur. In para 12, all suggestions are denied but in para 13 he has admitted that, prior to the liquor case against his father, 20 to 25 days back, when the owner of construction work had been out of station, at that time he had borrowed Rs.1000/- from accused and he had assured to return it. 10. PW2 shadow pancha is examined at Exhibit 27. In initial chief, he stated about visit to ACB office and meeting complainant who narrated the complaint which was typed on a computer. He further deposed about he accompanying complainant with a voice recorder, about conversation between accused and complainant during which, on question by complainant, accused had said that he has told as “Rs.1000/-”, thereafter they approaching ACB officer and narrating the events and even about preparation of CD of the conversation. In para 5, he narrated the events that took place at police chowky, Adas where again accused asked complainant whether photos are brought ALS-88-2020 -7- and further questioned what happened about his Rs.1000/-, after which complainant took out Rs.1000/-, paid it to accused who accepted both the currencies and kept it in back pocket after which signal was given. Though above witness is also subjected to extensive cross, he has denied that when he and Shingade (PW4 IO) went inside, Shingade asked accused about the money and accused told him that complainant had taken hand-loan from him and he was returning the said amount. Therefore, whatever admission is given by complainant is denied by the independent witness. 11. Learned trial court, as pointed out, has already considered and accepted testimony of shadow pancha PW3 sanctioning authority and sanction to be valid. 12. On going through the impugned judgment, it is noticed that, in para 30, observations are made that prosecution witnesses are consistent with regard to sending PW1 and PW2 to accused for verification of demand of bribe, but trial court, in subsequent paragraphs has noticed certain variances in the testimony of complainant and shadow pancha on the points of contents of ALS-88-2020 -8- conversation and finally recorded finding in para 33 and 43 that witnesses are not consistent on the point of demand. However prima facie, from above discussed evidence of complainant and shadow pancha, it is otherwise. Even when there was no ambiguity on the point of quantum of bribe, contrary observations are made in para 34. Therefore, there are points to be dealt in appeal and case to that extent indeed is made out. Resultantly, this Court is inclined to grant leave. Hence following order : ORDER I. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses “A” and “C”. II. Leave is granted to file appeal. III. Registry to register the appeal. IV. Appeal stands admitted. V. Call record and proceedings. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] vre