{1} ALS 2 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 2 OF 2025 . The State of Maharashtra Through Deputy Superintendent, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Beed. ….Applicant Versus 1. Anil s/o Laxmanrao Kulkarni Age: 56 years, Occu.: Talathi, R/o. Mangalwar Peth, Kaij, Tal.Kaij, Dist.Beed. 2. Tulshiram s/o Jagannath Mukadam Age: 51 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Yusufwadgaon, Tal.Kaij, Dist.Beed. …..Respondents (Ori Accused) ….. APP for Applicant : Ms.Vaishali Dama Advocate for Respondent no.1 : Ms.Rupali D.Chinchpurkar Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. Aditya Arun Puranik ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 15 JUNE, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 17 JUNE, 2026 ORDER : 1. This leave to file is on behalf of State, primarily getting dissatisfied by judgment and order dated 18-07-2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Kaij, District Beed in Special (ACB) Case No.5 2026:BHC-AUG:25957 {2} ALS 2 OF 2025 of 2023 acquitting present respondents from charges under Sections 7, 8, 12, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. In trial Court, prosecution was launched against present respondents, who are accused nos.1 and 2 and were Talathi and his Assistant respectively. According to prosecution, when complainant approached accused no.1 Talathi for mutating his name in the revenue record on account of demise of his father, there was demand of Rs.2,200/-. Complainant approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) and lodged report resulting into planning and execution of trap as well as apprehending accused and chargesheeting them for above charges. During trial, prosecution has adduced evidence of four witnesses and relied on documentary evidence, which was duly appreciated by learned trial court, who refused to accept case of prosecution as proved and acquitted the accused. Hence, instant application for leave to file appeal. 3. Learned APP would apprise this Court and reiterate its case in trial court and would submit that, as there was demand of bribe, ACB was approached by complainant. Prior to main trap, verification of {3} ALS 2 OF 2025 demand was got done and thereafter, main trap was laid and also successfully executed. According to her, script of conversation of verification of demand, shows that there was demand. That, while complainant and shadow pancha went together to accused, there was demand followed by acceptance by accused nos.1 and 2. She points out that, accused no.1 accepted his share as well as share of accused no.2, his Assistant. That, PW3 Sanctioning Authority was also examined, but in spite of availability of overwhelming and convincing evidence, accused are acquitted. That, State has a good case on merits and therefore, she prays for leave to file appeal. 4. Both learned counsel for both accused would justify the order of acquittal on the ground that prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand as well as acceptance. It is pointed out that, verification of demand was not proved by playing the recorded conversation in the Court. They pointed out that, evidence of complainant is ambiguous. That, he speaks of demand by both accused at one and same time. That, both PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha are not consistent and story of PW2 shadow pancha is at variance than the story of PW1 complainant. They pointed out that, sanction accorded is by incompetent authority and {4} ALS 2 OF 2025 for above reasons, they support judgment and order of acquittal. 5. Record shows that in trial court prosecution rested its case on the evidence of four witnesses I.e. PW1 complainant at exh.13, PW2 shadow pancha at exh.20, PW3 Sanctioning Authority at exh.29 and PW4 Investigating Officer at exh.34. PW1 Complainant after stating that when he had been to office of Talathi for mutating his name in place of his father, he deposed that accused informed him that “fees” of Rs.3,000/- would be required and on his request for reducing same, he was told that Rs.2,000/- would be required for himself whereas his Assistant i.e. accused no.2 would require Rs.200/- and as such Rs.2,200/- would be required. Therefore, complainant approached ACB and lodged complaint. Then, he deposed about shadow pancha PW2 Shaikh Yunus meeting him and accompanying him to the office of Talathi. But, here, as submitted, witness had stated that both accused, who were present were asked by him to do his work and he himself seems to have informed that he had brought the fees with him. Therefore, there seems to be offer prior to any demand itself. While under cross-examination witness has admitted that contents of complaint were narrated by maternal uncle of his wife {5} ALS 2 OF 2025 namely Bharat Puri. Therefore, complaint is not by PW1 complainant. He is also unable to remember whether he caused signature or gave thumb impression. In paragraph 16 of cross- examination, he admitted that after entering Talathi office, he immediately gave amount to accused no.1 asking him to do the work. Therefore, even in cross-examination, this witness admitted offering money to accused no.1 prior to any demand. Above person namely Bharat Puri is also not examined by prosecution. 6. PW2 shadow pancha deposed about accompanying complainant to Office of Talathi, but contrary to version of complainant, who had stated about availability of accused no.1, he deposed that accused no.1 Talathi was not available in the Office, but accused no.2 was present and that accused no.1 came shortly after which complainant had communication with him and then complainant gave application, upon which, according to this witness, accused no.1 demanded money for the said work and also further asked complainant to have communication with accused no.2 regarding the work and hence, they both went to accused no.2. Therefore, his story is not in consonance with story of PW1 complainant. PW2 shadow pancha in paragraph 10 of cross- {6} ALS 2 OF 2025 examination has admitted that accused no.1 had not personally demanded any fixed amount. 7. Therefore, prima facie going through evidence of PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha, they do not seem to be consistent. Moreover, PW1 complainant himself has offered bribe prior to any demand by accused no.1. As pointed out, PW1 complainant’s testimony is ambiguous as he has deposed about both accused to be present and he asking both of them about his work and according to him, they both together asked whether he had brought fees. Therefore, essential aspect like demand itself has come under shadow of doubt. Consequently, mere possession in absence of demand is of no significance. As pointed out, conversation of demand was itself not played before the Court for identification of voice and conversation. 8. PW3 Sanctioning Authority seems to be Residential Deputy Collector, Osmanabad. Though he claims to be appointing authority, he does not seem to have placed anything in black and white to that extent. Going by his rank and the post held by accused no.1, it is the Collector, who is the appointing authority and in cross-examination, {7} ALS 2 OF 2025 he has admitted about receiving letter from Collector alongwith papers of investigation on 19-05-2016. Therefore, PW3 Sanctioning Authority was not competent to accord sanction. 9. Therefore, the net result of above discussion is that sine qua non like demand is not proved. PW1 and PW2 i.e. complainant and shadow pancha are not corroborating and lending support to each other on material counts. Hence, learned trial court committed no error in acquitting the accused as prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. No case being made out on merits to accord leave, the application deserves to be rejected. Hence, following order : ORDER The application stands rejected. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT