IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.411 OF 2024 Govardhan Uttamrao Mule, Age 37 yrs., Occ. Govt. Servant (Junior Assistant, Narega Branch, Panchayat Section, Z.P., Beed.) R/o Limba Ganesh, Tq. & Dist. Beed. … Applicant … Versus … 1 The State of Maharashtra Through Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Old Tahsil Office building, Opp. Main Post Office, Old Bazar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar – 431 001. 2 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Near Civil Hospital, Beed – 431 122. 3 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagar Road, Shivaji Chowk, Beed – 431 122. (Deleted vide order dated 20.03.2024.) 4 The In-charge Police Inspector, Police Station, Beed (City), Tq. & Dist. Beed – 431 122. 5 Vilas Sahebrao Shinde, Age 57 yrs., Occ. Agri., R/o Shirala, Post Kekat Pangri, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed – 431 127. … Respondents 2025:BHC-AUG:11626-DB 2 Cri.Appln_411_2024 ... Mr. O.D. Mane, Advocate for applicant Mrs. Priya R. Bharaswadkar, APP for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 ... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. RESERVED ON : 10th MARCH, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd APRIL, 2025 ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) 1 Present application has been filed initially for quashment of First Information Report vide Crime No.257/2023 dated 06.11.2023 registered with City Police Station, Beed, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and later on by way of amendment for quashing the proceedings in Special Case No.97/2024 pending before Special Judge, under PC Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Beed. 2 Heard learned Advocate for applicant and learned APP for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Name of respondent No.3 has been deleted vide order dated 20.03.2024. Respondent No.5 – complainant though served failed to appear. 3 Learned Advocate for applicant has taken us through contents of 3 Cri.Appln_411_2024 First Information Report and the entire charge sheet. The fact which is not in dispute is that applicant is a Government servant working with Panchayat Samiti, Beed, Dist. Beed. Complainant – respondent No.5 lodged complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau, Beed on 16.10.2023 stating that a cow shed was sanctioned by Panchayat Samiti, Georai under the scheme Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MANREGA) and for that amount, amount of Rs.84,000/- was granted towards expenditure. Amount of Rs.6,825/- was paid for unskilled labour charges to the complainant through the Muster Roll. Thereafter, the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Georai had sent proposal for remaining amount of skilled labour charges on 25.09.2023 to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. The concerned letter was travelled till General Administration Department (Panchayat) and then it went to the present applicant, who is serving as Clerk with Zilla Parishad, Beed, has demanded amount of Rs.2,000/- as bribe for sending proposal for the amount of Rs.57,471/-. However, documents would show that there was neither demand nor acceptance of any bribe amount. The Anti Corruption Bureau had laid trap on two occasions but, the present applicant had not accepted any amount. The conversation rather shows that he was not willing to accept the amount. There is inordinate delay and unexplained delay of 11 days in registration of First Information Report which is now restricted to the alleged 4 Cri.Appln_411_2024 demand only. The First Information Report is based on concocted story and with some mala fide intention and, therefore, it would be unjust to ask applicant to face the trial. He, therefore, prayed for quashment of First Information Report and proceedings. 4 Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the application and submits that though applicant has not accepted the amount, that does not mean that he had not demanded. There was verification panchnama and conversation has been recorded. Said conversation would clearly shows the demand of Rs.2,000/- from the present applicant. Therefore, this is not a fit case where the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised. 5 At the outset, it is to be noted that demand of bribe is itself a separate offence and if the bribe amount is accepted, then together with the offence for the demand, the offence for the acceptance can be separately tried. Therefore, now, when it is accepted to the prosecution also that the amount has not been accepted by the applicant, the offence has not been registered under the relevant Section, but it is restricted to only the demand. The documents collected in the charge sheet would show that the complainant had made application and amount of Rs.84,000/- was sanctioned to him for erection of cattle shed. Only part payment was made 5 Cri.Appln_411_2024 to him in respect of unskilled labour charges. Panchayat Samiti, Georai had prepared the bill for the remaining amount and it was to be submitted to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. The complaint states that the said proposal went to the present applicant after the Inward number was given to the said proposal and then it appears that complainant had met the present applicant, may be in respect of inquiry as to when he would get the amount. It is the contention of complainant that after the proposal was in the hand of present applicant, he demanded amount of Rs.2,000/- from respondent No.5. After the complaint was lodged, the verification has been got done in presence of panch No.1. The voice recorder was concealed on the person of complainant. If we consider the panchnama dated 16.10.2023, then following is the conversation - yksdlsod Jh- eqGs Vkdya-- ,d vkB ngk fnolkauh d/kh pDdj ekjk-- rqEgkyk eh ikBfoysya nk[kforks ukxiqjyk Eg.kth rqEgkyk dGra dh ckck vkiys iSls ;s.kkj;r-- rdzkjnkj Jh- f’kans Ukkgh ts dkgh vlu rs dkgh vMp.k ukgh cksyk-- yksdlsod Jh- eqGs nksu gtkj :i;s-- rdzkjnkj Jh- f’kans dk;-- yksdlsod Jh- eqGs nksu gtkj :i;s-- rdzkjnkj Jh- f’kans nksu gtkj :i;s pkyr;-- i.k ek>a dke Ogk;yk ikfgth lkgsc-- yksdlsod Jh- eqGs rqEgkyk Qksup ykohy eh-- gs >kY;kps uarj cl dk-- rqEgkyk eWlst Vkdhu iSls vkys Eg.kqu rl dl vkya xsya Eg.k.kkj ukgh rdzkjnkj Jh- f’kans nksu gtkj nsÅ dk \-- yksdlsod Jh- eqGs ga-- rdzkjnkj Jh- f’kans uacj lkaxk-- uacj lkaxk-- yksdlsod Jh- eqGs 9405077779 6 Cri.Appln_411_2024 6 Thus, it can be seen that there appears to be the demand of Rs.2,000/-. Now, voice samples have been taken and there will be the report of analyst in due course. The fact that applicant becoming suspicious thereafter and then refusing to accept the amount cannot be ruled out. Therefore, this case cannot be taken as a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The documents on record do not show that there was any previous rivalry between complainant and present applicant, so as to implicate the applicant. Therefore, the application stands rejected. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd