{1} ALS -79-2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 79 OF 2021 The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Police Station Kadim Jalna, Tq. and District Jalna. ….Applicant Versus Sanjay Dattatray Modwan Age: 53 years, Sectional Engineer, Water Conservation Department, Zilla Parishad, Jalna – Class – 2, At present R/o Samarth Nagar, Behind Zilla Parishad Office, Jalna, Tq. and District Jalna. ….Respondent (Ori, Accused) ….. Mr.V.S.Badakh, APP for Applicant. Mr.Pratik Arvind Bhosle. Advocate for Respondent. ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 23 September, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 24 September, 2026 ORDER : 1. Present application is at the instance of State seeking leave to file appeal to challenge judgment and order of acquittal dated 23-06-2021 passed by learned Adhoc District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Special (PCA) Case No.79 of 2019. 2026:BHC-AUG:43444 {2} ALS -79-2021 2. Before the trial Court, case was set up by prosecution that, complainant, who was a contractor, had rendered irrigation work and had tendered bills for sanction. He received part payment of Rs.73,000/- out of total bill amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and for remaining amount, when he approached accused, who was a Engineer, there was said to be demand of Rs.5,000/-. As complainant was not willing to pay bribe, complaint to that effect was given to Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities, who planned and executed trap, apprehended accused and chargesheeted him, and he was tried vide above special case. The learned trial Court, after appreciating entire oral and documentary evidence, acquitted accused from the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Dissatisfied by above Judgment and order of acquittal, State is keen in questioning the judgment by filing appeal and hence, instant application for leave to file appeal. 3. Learned APP would submit that, accused was working as Engineer in Irrigation Department, Zilla Parishad. For sanctioning bills of informant contractor, there was demand of bribe of {3} ALS -79-2021 Rs.5,000/-. That, on receipt of complaint to that extent from informant, ACB authorities planned and executed trap and according to learned APP, it was successful. He would submit that, both demand and acceptance were duly proved by prosecution from the testimony of both complainant as well as shadow pancha and they are lending support to each other. He would submit that, there is also recovery of tainted currency from accused. That, there was no challenge to the sanction to prosecute and therefore, it his submission that, prosecution has duly proved the charges, but learned trial Court misread the evidence and incorrectly appreciated the same. According to him, prosecution has a good case on merits and therefore, he urges for leave to file appeal. 4. In answer to above, learned counsel for respondent/accused would justify the order of acquittal by pointing out that, prosecution has failed to prove the charges and therefore, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. Therefore, he prays for rejection of application. 5. Visited the evidence adduced by prosecution. PW1 Raju {4} ALS -79-2021 Pralhad Jadhav is Complainant and his evidence is at Exhibit 16 wherein he seems to have deposed that, he is a contractor and he had carried out irrigation work in June 2017 and tendered bill to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/-. He recieved first installment to the tune of Rs.73,000/- and for the balance amount, he visited the office of accused and for issuing cheque of balance amount, there was seem to be demand of Rs.5,000/-. He accordingly approached ACB. He narrated procedures undertaken by the Investigating Officer. Regarding the events of main trap, he deposed that, he and PW2 Ramesh Gangadhar Thore, shadow pancha went to a hotel, took tea, and at that time, accused allegedly asked whether payment is brought and therefore, tainted currency was handed over to accused followed by relaying of predetermined signal. 6. However, PW2 Ramesh Gangadhar Thore, who is shadow panch and looked upon a witness to corroborate complainant, in his evidence at Exhibit 20 deposed that, he and complainant approached accused at Zilla Parishad and according to him, complainant started talking with accused and complainant questioned about his work upon which accused allegedly said that higher authority is not in the {5} ALS -79-2021 office. However, thereafter, this shadow panch witness deposed that complainant himself asked accused how much would be required to be given. Thus, prior to any demand there seems to be an offer by complainant. Therefore, his above testimony inflicts severe blow to the prosecution. It is fairly settled position that, demand has to be sufficiently proved and complainant, being an interested person, corroboration is always insisted for, but here as stated above, prior to any demand by accused, according to shadow pancha, complainant had offered bribe. 7. Another feature of this case as pointed out by learned counsel for applicant is that, infact there was no work pending with accused so as to readily accept the case of complainant about demand of bribe from him. Complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that, on 03-12-2018 accused had forwarded proposal for sanction of the bills and on 21-02-2019 itself there were orders to the Tahsildar to issue bills and he fairly admitted that, at such time, no work was pending with accused. However, still complaint is lodged with ACB alleging demand of bribe when in fact no work was pending on the said date. {6} ALS -79-2021 For aforesaid reasons and with such quality of evidence, this Court does not find it a fit case to accord leave to file appeal. Accordingly following order is passed : ORDER The application is rejected. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT