{1} ALS -102-2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 102 OF 2020 The State of Maharashtra Through Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalna. ….Applicant Versus Balu S/o. Limbaji Sanap Age: 39 years, Occu.: Service, R/o.Pawansut Mangal Karyalaya, Kalika Nagar, Near Water Tank, Nagar Road, Beed, District Beed. …..Respondent ….. Mr.V.S.Badakh, Advocate for Applicant. Mr.Pratik Arvind Bhosle, Advocate for Respondent ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 29 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 30 SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER : 1. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Jalna in Special Case (ACB) No.17 of 2017, State has preferred instant application for leave to file appeal. 2. Learned APP would point out that, accused was working as a Talathi. That, complainant PW1 Prakash had approached accused for 2026:BHC-AUG:44701 {2} ALS -102-2020 taking mutation entry in respect of the well situated in land Block No.647 over 7/12 extract and for the said work, there was demand of Rs.1,500/-. That, complaint to that effect was received by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). He pointed out that, all formalities were completed by engaging shadow pancha and giving necessary instructions. He would submit that, prior to main trap, demand verification was also got done and thereafter, main trap was conducted. That, at both time, there is demand and complainant and shadow pancha are consistent on the same. He pointed out that, tainted currency was also recovered from accused substantiating acceptance. He would submit that, sanction was undisputedly held to be valid by the learned trial Court. However, learned trial Court erroneously acquitted the accused by holding that demand and acceptance were not cogently proved. That, State has a good case to be dealt in appeal and therefore, he urges for leave to file appeal. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/original accused would support the impugned judgment and prays to refuse the leave. 4. Perused the record. It appears that PW1 Prakash is {3} ALS -102-2020 complainant, PW2 Sushilkumar is shadow pancha and PW3 Vinod Chavan is the Investigating Officer. Evidence of complainant is at Exhibit 19, that of shadow pancha is at Exhibit 23 and that of Investigating Officer is at Exhibit 34. 5. In the light of nature of charge, it is to be seen whether demand at the outset is at all proved or not. On studying the testimony of PW1 complainant, it is noticed that, he has not stated the date on which he initially met accused for his work during which he claims that there was demand of Rs.1,500/-. He merely deposed that on 11-05-2017 he approached ACB. According to PW1 complainant, while verifying demand, when he and PW2 shadow pancha approached accused in his office and when he asked about his work, accused told him to give money, upon which he expressed his inability to pay Rs.1,500/- but was in position to pay Rs.1,000/- and thereafter, they returned and narrated such events to the PW3 Investigating Officer. He did not depose about pre-trap panchanama being drawn after confirmation of demand. In paragraph 3 of examination-in-chief, he directly deposed that he and shadow pancha again went to accused, met him and asked accused to take entry on 7/12 extract. According to {4} ALS -102-2020 complainant, at that time, accused suggested him to put the amount in plastic carry-bag kept on the table and accordingly he inserted tainted currency in the carry-bag and gave predetermined signal. However, while under cross-examination, he admitted that, he himself raised issue of money. He also admitted of not hearing conversation which took place between him and accused. He was also unable to tell in which manner accused suggested him to put money in the carry-bag. 6. On the contrary PW2 Sushilkumar, shadow pancha, though deposed about carrying voice recorder for demand verification and hearing accused demanding Rs.1,500/-, regarding the events of the main trap, he deposed that, on 12-05-2017 at about 3:00 p.m. accused met complainant and asked him to put the amount in one carry-bag and thereafter, complainant gave signal. Therefore, here, shadow pancha does not speak about any conversation between complainant and accused, which was narrated by complainant in his evidence that accused demanded Rs.1,500/-, but there were negotiations and complainant agreed to pay Rs.1,000/-. Shadow pancha does not corroborate complainant on such count. {5} ALS -102-2020 On close scrutiny of evidence of shadow pancha, more particularly paragraph 2 of examination-in-chief, one does not come across any demand raised by accused as this witness directly states that accused met complainant and asked him to put amount in carry- bag. In cross-examination, he has admitted that, at the time of demand verification, he was standing outside office and he also volunteers that demand was by way of gestures and not orally. 7. Thus, what is culled out from above evidence is that, witnesses i.e. PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha are firstly not consistent. According to complainant, there was oral demand but according to shadow pancha, there was demand by way of gestures. Admittedly, recovery is not found from person of accused but from carry-bag which was kept on the table. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was acceptance. Moreover, here, as stated above, when was initial demand raised is not stated by complainant. Therefore, case of prosecution on the points of both demand acceptance comes under shadow of doubt and for such reason and with such quality of evidence, no fault can be attributed to learned trial Court for refusing {6} ALS -102-2020 to accept case of prosecution. Consequently, this Court does not find that any fruitful purpose would be served by granting leave, as there is no good or prospective ground for doing so. Hence, leave refused. Accordingly, following order is passed : ORDER The application is rejected. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT