ALS-8-2022.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 8 OF 2022 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Shridhar Uttamrao Vakre ...Respondents *** • Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for Applicant/State • Mr. A. R. Devakate, Advocate for the Respondent *** CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J RESERVED ON : JANUARY 16, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 17, 2026 ORDER : 1. In this application, state has invoked provisions under Section 378(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure urging to grant leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, Beed in ACB Case No. 11/2015. 2. Learned APP would apprise this Court about the background of the case that, for clearing bill allegedly tendered by complainant towards supply of grains for a period from November- December, 2013, accused, a clerk in the District Supply Office, demanded bribe by way of commission of 8% of the total cost of the bill. Complainant as was not willing to pay bribe, lodged report Exhibit 34, PAGE 1 OF 6 2026:BHC-AUG:1686 ALS-8-2022.odt which was made the basis for investigation after planning trap. Learned APP pointed out that, initially verification of demand was got done by recording conversation in the tape reorder followed by drawing of pre- trap panchnama. He submitted that, thereafter both complainant and shadow panch, and independent witnesses were given necessary instructions. They both had approached accused, who allegedly raised demand and also accepted the bribe amount. Learned APP pointed out that, there were anthracene traces substantiating acceptance. Thus, according to learned APP, essential ingredients of the charges were available, but the same has not been correctly appreciated by learned Trial Court. 3. He further pointed out that, here learned Trial Court had held sanction to be valid but by adopting hyper technical approach, acquitted the accused. He pointed out that, defence of accused is readily accepted even when it was not probabilized. Moreover, there was sufficient material to attract presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to record guilt of the accused. He pointed out that, acquittal was result of improper appreciation and non consideration of settled legal position. For above reasons, he submits that, as State has good case on merits in Appeal, he prays to grant leave. PAGE 2 OF 6 ALS-8-2022.odt 4. In answer to above, learned Counsel for Accused, who would supports the judgment and order of acquittal, would point out that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home charge. He pointed out that, in fact no work found to be was pending with accused to accept the case of prosecution regarding complainant approaching accused and he further putting up demand of bribe. Learned Counsel pointed out that, crucial aspect of very demand has not been substantiated by prosecution and on this count, he took through the evidence of PW1 and 2 and the cross and would submit that, these witnesses made statement before the Trial Court that alleged demand was by way of gesture and there was no oral demand. He pointed out that, complainant and shadow panch witness are inconsistent and giving contrary versions on the point of demand and, therefore, learned Trial Court rightly disbelieved the case of prosecution on the point of demand. He pointed out that, material contradictions, which have emerged in the evidence of important witness PW 2 Shadow Panch, are got proved through investigation officer. He pointed out that, in fact there was hand loan transaction between complainant and accused and the very report Exhibit 34 carries material to that extent. That, the amount accepted were towards said transactions and not being bribe, he justifies the acceptance of defence version by the Trial Court as to be probabilized PAGE 3 OF 6 ALS-8-2022.odt and for all above reasons, he prays to refuse leave for want of merits. 5. On the line of above submissions, record is put to the scrutiny. 6. It is emerging that, on complaint of one Santosh Shehrao Jogdand, ACB authorities planned and executed trap. Report was received that, for clearing bill for supply of food grains, there was demand of 8% of the bill amount. Part payment was said to be made and before remaining amount is paid, ACB authorities entertained complaint of PW1. Case of prosecution is rested on evidence of PW1 Complainant, PW2 Shadow Panch, PW 3 Sanctioning Authority, and PW 4 Investigating Officer. It seems that, investigating machinery initially got demand verified and also drew pre-trap panchanama i.e. by recording conversation between complainant and accused and thereafter made complainant and shadow panch go together to the office of accused and to pay bribe on demand and relay necessary signal. Evidence of PW1 Compaliant is at 32 and shadow panch 51. Attention of this Court being invited to the cross of these two witnesses, it is indeed and it is clearly emerging that, according to complainant, accused put up oral demand, however, according to investigating officer, complainant in his statement recorded post trap had stated that accused has demanded amount by way of gesture. Similarly, PW 2 PAGE 4 OF 6 ALS-8-2022.odt shadow panch has also stated about gesture and moreover, his evidence shows that he was not in the company of complainant during conversation between complainant and accused and he has admitted that he was away from both of them. Therefore, there is no corroboration to the accept of very demand. 7. Mere finding currency in the hand of accused would not justify the acceptance of bribe amount unless demand is cogently proved. 8. Defence taken in Trial Court is that, there were hand loan transaction between complainant and accused. As pointed out, by learned Counsel for accused in report Exhibit 34 complainant has stated about earlier acquaintance and transaction with accused and himself. Therefore, when said defence of accused is not rendered doubtful, learned Trial Court has committed no error in accepting said defence to be probabilized. 9. As regards to submissions raised before this Court by learned APP regarding Trial Court failed to invoke Section 20 of the P.C. Act, here, as stated above, the very foundational fact of demand itself has come under shadow of doubt. Therefore, presumption under Section 20 was rightly not invoked by Trial Court and reason to that extent is PAGE 5 OF 6 ALS-8-2022.odt also found to be assigned by Trial Judge. 10. In the light of contrary versions of complainant and shadow panch and the contradictions proved through investigating officer as submitted, case of prosecution in Trial Court was itself weak. Therefore, as no point is made out on merits to accord, the leave deserves to be refused. Hence, I proceed to pass following order: ORDER (a) Leave is refused. (b) Application for leave to appeal stands rejected. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) Umesh PAGE 6 OF 6