ALS-88-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.88 OF 2026 The State of Maharashtra Through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. .. Applicant Versus Ananda Patilba Tupe, Age: 55 years, Occu.: Service, R/o. N-11, A-1, Yadavnagar, L Sector, Hudco, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. .. Respondent … Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for applicant/State. Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 21.09.2026 Pronounced on : 22.09.2026 ORDER :- 1. This application for leave to file appeal by State is as a result of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.03.2026 passed by learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Special ACB Case No.01 of 2013, acquitting the present respondent from charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2026:BHC-AUG:42919 ALS-88-2026 -2- 2. According to learned APP, the accused was working as a Senior Clerk in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. As the matter of complainant was dismissed in default and for its restoration when complainant had approached accused, there was demand of Rs.1,000/- to restore the file. That, on receipt of complaint to that extent, ACB authorities planned and executed trap. That, said trap was also successful. That, prior to the main trap, demand verification was got done followed by drawing pre-trap panchanama as well as visit of complainant and shadow panch to the office of accused. That, accused had demanded bribe. Complainant has deposed to that extent. Shadow panch PW3, who in the company of PW2 complainant, was also party to the demand. Both complainant as well as shadow panch are consistent on the point of demand. That, recovery is from accused and thus, according to learned APP, there is demand as well as acceptance. That, the learned trial Court has noticed minor contradictions and variances in the testimony of the complainant and the shadow panch and has consequently acquitted the accused. That, there was a valid sanction, but the same has also not been properly appreciated. According to the learned APP, the State has a good case on merits and, therefore, leave is urged for. ALS-88-2026 -3- 3. In answer to above, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, there is no corroboration to the testimony of the complainant from the independent witness i.e. shadow panch. That, in fact, there was offer prior to any demand, and that too twice. Learned Counsel for the respondent took this Court through the cross- examination of the complainant and the shadow panch and would submit that there are vital admissions. Coupled with this, he pointed out that the sanction is invalid for want of due application of mind. 4. After considering the above submissions and on going through the papers, it appears that prosecution was lodged against present respondent by the State on accusations that in the capacity of Senior Clerk in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, for restoring the proceedings dismissed in default, there was demand of Rs.1,000/- from complainant. As complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, he approached ACB office and gave complaint. On receipt of above complaint, ACB authorities summoned panchas, introduced them to complainant. They heard the narrative of complainant and signed over his complaint Exhibit-36. It appears that prior to the main trap, Investigating Officer decided to get demand verification by sending complainant and shadow panch with tape recorder. ALS-88-2026 -4- Unfortunately, it seems that conversation between complainant and accused was not recorded, but still panchanama was drawn. Thereafter, complainant, in his evidence at Exhibit-35, in paragraph No.3 of his examination-in-chief, narrated that when he and shadow panch approached accused in his office and after accused was asked by complainant about his work, there was said to be demand of Rs.1,000/- and on such demand, complainant handed over tainted currency, which was accepted by accused. 5. It is fairly settled position that, complainant being interested party in cases of such nature, corroboration is insisted for and therefore, evidence of independent witness i.e. shadow panch PW3 is required to be looked into. PW3 shadow panch, in his evidence at Exhibit-56, deposed about he visiting ACB office, being introduced to complainant, hearing his story and signing over the complaint. He also deposed about he and complainant together going and carrying tape recorder at the time of demand verification, but in his testimony though he stated that accused demanded bribe, he fairly stated in examination-in-chief itself that said conversation between complainant and accused was not recorded. 6. As regards to main trap is concerned, he has deposed about the events in paragraph No.6 of his examination-in-chief, wherein he ALS-88-2026 -5- stated that after he visited office of the accused, when complainant asked accused about the work, at that time, accused told him to send his Advocate after which complainant agreed by saying “Ok” and complainant himself, according to this witness, said that he will pay Rs.1,000/- . Thus, shadow panch, as submitted by learned Counsel for respondent, has offered bribe without any demand by accused. 7. It is settled position that demand is sine qua non and mere acceptance or recovery of tainted currency is of no significance. Here, shadow panch, as stated above, has deposed about offer by complainant without any demand from accused and, therefore, case of prosecution suffers severe blow on such count itself. Therefore, with such quality of evidence, though there is valid sanction and acceptance, case cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt for above stated reasons. No case being made out on merits, leave is refused. Hence, following order is passed :- ORDER . Application stands dismissed. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] scm