4-REVN-392-2025 (CR).doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 392 OF 2025 Rashesh Dilip Joshi ...Applicant/s VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Sagar Shahani a/w. Abheek Melwani, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w. Ms. Saili Dhuru a/w. Mr. Ajay Joshi a/w. Mr. Sumitkumar Nimbalkar a/w. Mr. Digvijay Kachare for Respondent-CBI. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned APP and learned counsel for Respondent-CBI. 2. The challenge in this application is the impugned order passed by the Learned Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay, Mumbai against rejection of discharge application. 3. It is prosecution's case that Accused No.1 Rajesh Rane had demanded Rs.20,000/- on behalf of Accused No.2 - Penter Kumar Jayaswal, Examiner (Customs) Mumbai i.e. public servant to clear the complainant's consignment pending in Air Cargo complex. After negotiation, the bribe amount reduced to Rs.12,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint which was verified in the presence of panchas. Page 1 of 4 4-REVN-392-2025 (CR).doc Tikam The complainant when asked Accused No.1 about status of his consignment, on which accused No.1 Rajesh Rane informed the complainant that the consignment has already been cleared last night by paying Rs.12,000/- to Accused No.2 as agreed by them on whatsapp. Accused No.1 further informed that he has paid the amount of Rs.12,000/- to accused No.2- Custom Officer. A trap was laid on 30/05/2023 and Accused No.1 caught red handed while demanding and accepting Rs.12,000/- from the complainant. Accused No.1 informed that he had handed over the bribe money to the present Applicant for further forwarding to Accused No.2. There is transcript of conversation between the Applicant, Accused No.2 - public servant. 4. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The Applicant was apprehended during the post trap proceeding. There is nothing against the Applicant except the conversation recorded between applicant and Accused No.2. But this fact has not considered by the Learned Sessions Judge and has passed the order which is erroneous and requested to allow the application. Learned counsel for the Applicant relied on (1) Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani and Anr. v/s State of Maharashtra Through Assistant Commissioner of Police1; (2) Pravinkumar Pitambar Deore v/s. State of Maharashtra2. 1 2019 SCC Online Bom 13130, 2 2017 SCC Online Bom 9585. Page 2 of 4 4-REVN-392-2025 (CR).doc Tikam 5. It is contention of learned SPP that Applicant was part of chain, who accepted the bribe from the Complainant. Applicant accepted Rs.10,000/- from Accused No.1 i.e. private person and handed over the amount to Accused No.2 i.e. public servant. The conversation between Applicant and Accused No.2- public servant is produced on record, which shows the role of the Applicant that he had handed over the bribe amount to public servant. It shows his involvement in the crime . Applicant was custom clearing agent at Air Cargo, Bombay. There is sufficient material against him. The Learned Special Judge has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required in it and requested to reject the application. 6. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. There are specific allegations against the Applicant that he had taken Rs.10,000/- from Accused No.1 and handed over to Accused No.2, who was public servant. The conversation recorded between Applicant and Accused No.2 is produced on record. It shows that there was transaction of Rs.5,000/- between them. They were speaking about bribe money. It is settled law that accused can be discharged when there is no case at all. The conversation between Applicant and Accused No.2 shows prima facie involvement of the Applicant in the crime. I have gone through the case laws cited by learned counsel for the Applicant. The facts of the present case and cited cases are different. Hence, the same are 4-REVN-392-2025 (CR).doc Tikam not applicable to the present case and I pass following order: ORDER Criminal Revision Application is rejected. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)