ALS-58-2021 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL BY STATE NO. 58 OF 2021 The State of Maharashtra, Through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalna. .. Applicant Versus Narayan s/o Laxman Solunke, Age 44 years, Occupation Service [now suspended], R/o. Gulmohar Colony, N-5, P.17, Cidco, Aurangabad, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondent … Mrs. A. S. Mantri, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pratik A. Bhosle, Advocate for the respondent (through V.C.). ... CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 10.09.2026 Pronounced on : 11.09.2026 ORDER : 1. This leave to file appeal at the instance of State is in consequence to the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalna in Special Case (ACB) No. 29 of 2016 acquitting present respondent from offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). 2026:BHC-AUG:41976 ALS-58-2021 -2- 2. PW1 approached ACB and filed complaint Exhibit 24 alleging that for clearing his bill of construction work to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-, accused, a Gram Sevak, demanded bribe of Rs.51,000/- i.e. for issuing Resolution regarding completion of work. On receipt of such complaint ACB authorities planned and executed trap by engaging pancha, giving them necessary instructions and explaining them procedure. Accused was apprehended and tried vide above Special Case but on appreciation and analysis of the available evidence, he came to be acquitted. Dissatisfied by the same, State, who is keen in filing appeal, has preferred instant application to seek leave. 3. Learned APP would appraise this Court about prosecution story in trial court. She would submit that, after hearing complainant’s version about demand of bribe, ACB authorities summoned Pancha PW2. That, they both were given necessary instructions. Verification of demand was got done. Main trap was also successful. Accused was apprehended with tainted currency. According to her, both, complainant and shadow pancha, are consistent on the point of demand and acceptance. That, there was valid sanction to prosecute and authority to that extent was also examined. Thus, according to ALS-58-2021 -3- her, essentials like demand and acceptance for attracting the charges were very much available, but due to incorrect appreciation of evidence and law, trial ended up in acquittal. That, State has a good case on merits in appeal and hence, she prays to grant leave. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused justified the acquittal by submitting that very demand has not been proved. Witnesses, i.e. PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha, are not consistent and as the sine qua non for attracting the charges were patently missing from the prosecution evidence, he supports the judgment and order of acquittal and prays to refuse leave. 5. Heard. Perused the record. Case of prosecution is rested on the evidence of four witnesses i.e. complainant, shadow pancha, Investigating Officer and sanctioning authority. To ascertain whether there was any demand, evidence of complainant and shadow pancha is primarily to be visited. 6. PW1 complainant, in his initial evidence, testified about completion of construction work, bill to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- to be pending and he approaching accused, a Gram Sevak, to give Resolution in writing about completion of work. Then ALS-58-2021 -4- he deposed that accused demanded Rs.51,000/- and so he approached ACB. He deposed that, initially demand was got verified by sending him with pancha. Then he stated that after reaching the spot, he made phone call to the accused and then switched on the recorder and kept it in his pocket. During conversation accused asked him whether he brought the amount and he answered that he was incapable to pay that much amount. Then accused again asked him as to how much amount was with him, to which he replied as Rs.10,000/-. Then he deposed that he and pancha came back and informed the Investigating Officer, who conducted the procedure of application of anthracene powder to the currency. In para 3 of his chief, he deposed the events of main trap which took place at Yadgar Tea Stall in the vicinity of ST Bus Stand. According to him, accused was already waiting for them and accused asked him whether he brought the amount, he answered in affirmative, took out the amount and handed it over to accused who accepted it and thereafter predetermined signal was relayed. While under cross, he admitted that, it is the job of Executive Engineer to allot work and handover funds to Grampanchayat. He also admitted that, concerned Grampanchayat has to pass resolution ALS-58-2021 -5- to release the amount and he denied whether any resolution was so passed. Omission is brought in para 6 about he giving statement to police that at the time of verification of demand, accused asked him whether he brought the amount, and he replied that he cannot afford that much amount, upon which accused posed counter question to him as to how much did he bring, and he told accused about bringing Rs.10,000/-. In para 7, he is unable to state how portion marked “A” and “B” are appearing in his statement. 7. PW2 is the shadow pancha and he is looked upon as an independent witness and is expected to corroborate the complainant. However, in his examination-in-chief he gave a very different story than what was deposed by PW1 to the extent of conversation between complainant and accused. In para 2, pancha deposed that at the time of demand verification, when he and complainant reached the spot, accused was already there waiting for them. In para 3 of the chief itself he stated that around 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. when he and complainant went to Yadgar Tea Stall, and on entering the hotel, accused was already waiting for them. He deposed that, complainant handed over tainted notes to accused who accepted it. Therefore, such testimony of this witness clearly shows that prior to any demand, complainant has passed tainted currency to the accused. ALS-58-2021 -6- Consequently, story of prosecution on the count of demand itself comes under shadow of doubt. 8. It is also noticed that, both witnesses are directly deposing about accused to be present at Yadgar Hotel, but neither of them deposed about such venue to be decided by accused and complainant being called there with currency. Further, when there was telephonic conversation between complainant and accused at the time of initial demand, prosecution was expected to produce CDR to substantiate the same. For above reasons, when demand itself is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and when shadow pancha deposes about complainant handing over tainted currency without any demand, case of prosecution collapses. With such quality of evidence, no fault or error can be attributed to the trial court in acquitting the accused. No case being made out on merits to accord leave, following order is passed: ORDER I. Leave refused. II. Application is dismissed. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] vre