Cri-Apln-3978-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3978 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 534 OF 2025 PRADIP KAKASAHEB SATHE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .… Mr. Abhijit S. More, Advocate for Applicant Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for Respondent – State .… CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON : : August 21, 2026 August 27, 2026 O R D E R :- 1. The applicant, who stood convicted by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad in Special Case (ACB) No.03 of 2017 vide judgment and order dated 09.07.2025, prays for stay to the conviction. 2. Learned counsel for applicant pointed out that, the applicant was tried vide Special Case (ACB) No.03 of 2017, for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:38642 (( 2 )) Cri-Apln-3978-2025 3. That, upon complete appreciation of the evidence, conviction has been recorded. That, the applicant was on bail during the trial. He further submitted that the sentence has already been suspended by this Court. That, the applicant was in service but came to be terminated during the pendency of the appeal. It is submitted that accused No. 2, who had accepted the amount, has already been acquitted by this Court. There is no evidence of a demand for bribe. That, the applicant, being the sole breadwinner of the family, has urged that the relief of suspension of conviction be granted. 4. Learned APP strongly opposed the application on the ground that the conviction cannot be suspended, as this is not one of the rarest of rare cases. Moreover, according to him, there is sufficient evidence regarding both, the demand and acceptance. Therefore, since the conviction has been recorded upon a complete re- appreciation of the evidence, the application is opposed. 5. Heard. Perused the papers. The applicant hereby seeks suspension of conviction recorded by learned trial Judge by order dated 09.07.2025 i.e. for offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Present applicant and accused No.2 both were tried vide Special Case (ACB) No.3 of 2 of 4 (( 3 )) Cri-Apln-3978-2025 2017. Admittedly, present applicant is arraigned as accused No.1. There is no dispute that accused No.2 Naveenkumar Irlawar has been acquitted by trial Court. The brief snapshot of the prosecution case before the trial Court is that complainant’s brother had handed over complainant’s certain documents for obtaining new electricity connection standing in the name of sister in law Laxmi Kanade. Accordingly he filed an application on 05.01.2017 by visiting the office of Mahavitaran. To do the needful, it is alleged that applicant demanded Rs.7,000/- bribe and after negotiations, the figure was brought down to Rs.6,000/-. But, as complainant Yogesh was not willing to pay bribe, he approached the ACB and gave complaint, which was duly entertained by arranging and planning trap. Shadow punch was engaged to accompany complainant and they both were given necessary instructions. Complainant and shadow punch both approached accused and after the trap was successful, both accused were charge-sheeted and tried vide above special case. 6. Now, suspension of conviction is urged primarily on the ground that the very person who accepted the bribe has already been acquitted. The applicant has been suspended from service and is the sole breadwinner of his family. 3 of 4 (( 4 )) Cri-Apln-3978-2025 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court has, time and again, held that the Court should be slow in staying a conviction. It is only in rare and exceptional cases, where a prima facie case to that effect is made out, that a stay of conviction can be granted. The law to this extent is explicitly laid down in the cases of (1) K. C. Sareen Vs. C.B.I., Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584, (2) Union of India Vs. Atar Singh and another, (2003) 12 SCC 434 and (3) State of Maharashtra Vs. Gajanan and another, (2003) 12 SCC 432. 8. Here, the stay of conviction is primarily sought on the ground that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of the family and has been terminated from service. These, however, are not good grounds for staying the conviction. More particularly, the Trial Court has on complete appreciation of guilt, has found that a case is made out against the present applicant. No case or good ground is made out on merits. Therefore, following order is passed:- O R D E R Application is rejected. [ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ] SMS 4 of 4