Megha 51_als_1_22.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (STATE) NO.1 OF 2022 Union of India through CBI, ACB, Mumbai ...Applicant V/s. Bablu Kumar Saryou Prasad Chourasiya ...Respondent ______________ Mr. Kuldeep Patil for the Applicant. Ms. Rama Somani with Mr. Chetan A. Alai and Mr. Rishabh Chuvrasia i/b. Mr. Chetan Alia and Mr. Pranit Pawar for the Respondent. Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State. ______________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 04 NOVEMBER 2025. P.C.: 1) This is an application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, seeking leave of the Court under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to file appeal against judgment and order dated 24 September 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI/ACB, Nashik) acquitting the Respondent-accused of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1987 (PC Act). Page No. 1 of 3 04 November 2025 2025:BHC-AS:47214 Megha 51_als_1_22.docx 2) I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant -CBI and Ms. Humane, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent -accused. I have gone through the findings recorded by the learned Special Judge in the acquittal order as well as the evidence placed on record alongwith the application. 3) Perusal of the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Special Judge would indicate that there is specific admission by PW1 in his cross-examination that he had no occasion to apply for issuance of no objection certificate to the office of BSO and the office of sanctioning authority had already issued demi-official letter. Thus, apparently there was no necessity for PW2 -Complainant to offer any gratification in the present case. 4) The prosecution story is that the accused initially made a demand of gratification of Rs.1,000/-, based on which a complaint was lodged with CBI/ACB. The demand was sought to be verified by sending a team of officials alongwith two pancha witnesses. However, it appears that the raiding party did not enter the office of the accused and chose to wait outside in the parking lot. It appears that the Complainant was allowed to enter alone in the office when the alleged demand was verified. There are express admissions given by various witnesses that not only the CBI official -Mukesh but also PW3- pancha witnesses Mr. Lovejit Singh did not enter the office of the accused for verification of demand. The learned Judge has also noted the prosecution story of demand by the accused in writing. However, the alleged chit on which demand was made in writing was admittedly not produced before the learned Judge. The learned Judge has accordingly arrived at a conclusion that demand of bribe was not verified in any manner by any independent witness. One of the shadow witnesses, Page No. 2 of 3 04 November 2025 Megha 51_als_1_22.docx PW3 waited outside the office. Other shadow witness-Mohan has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, no independent person was present when the alleged demand was made. So far as audio recording is concerned, the learned Special Judge has recorded a finding that said recording was not played while recording evidence in the open court. Considering the overall conspectus of the case, the learned Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that demand was not proved by the prosecution. 5) In my view, above findings recorded by the learned Special Judge are plausible and well supported by evidence on record. I do not find any element of perversity in the said findings. I therefore concur with the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the demand. Since the demand itself is not proved against the accused, recovery of bribe amount from the accused even if proved, same would not constitute offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act. It is another thing that no independent witness was admittedly present when the bribe money was allegedly handed over to the accused or accepted by him. Therefore, even acceptance of gratification has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In my view there is no warrant for interference in the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. Grant of leave to file appeal in such circumstances would be an exercise in futility. In my view therefore, leave application preferred by Applicant-CBI deserves to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 04 November 2025 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/11/2025 15:10:34