APEAL-462-11.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2011

The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant

Versus

1.Kedarnath S/o Ramnaji Budhwant,

Age: 50, Occu. Service,

R/o. Jalna.

2.Sow Vidya w/o Kedarnath Budhwant,

Age:45 years, Occu. Household,

R/o. Jalna.

3.Rajiv S/o Kedarnath Budhwant,

Age: 25 years, Occu. Service,

R/o. Jalna ...Respondents

***

• Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Appellant - State

• Mr. S. S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondents

***

CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE , J

RESERVED ON :FEBRUARY 04, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON :FEBRUARY 09, 2026

JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal, at the instant of Appellant - State, arises out of

judgment and order dated 15.01.2010 passed by learned Special Court,

Jalna in Special Case No. 06/2007 acquitting present Respondent from

charges under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code read

with Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Act.

PAGE 1 OF 16 2026:BHC-AUG:5508

APEAL-462-11.odt

2. In short, case of prosecution in trial Court was that,

accused, who was working as supervisor in Agriculture Department,

during check period from 08.08.1984 to October, 2004, amassed

disproportionate property from his known source of income. It was

specific case that, known source of accused from salary, agricultural

income, rent income was to the tune of Rs. 27,36,825/-. That, he had

disclosed expenses to the tune of Rs. 14,02,252/-. That, he had acquired

property worth Rs. 48,89,632/- and, therefore, the disproportionate

property acquired by him was to the tune of Rs.35,55,159/- for which he

could not give proper explanation. It is the further case of prosecution

that, accused no. 2 wife and accused no.3 son of accused no.1 had

abetted the above offence and, therefore, after investigation, all three

were charge-sheeted and tried by learned Special Judge for above

offences.

During trial, prosecution adduced evidence of in all 19

witnesses and also rested its case on various panchnama and

documentary evidence. On appreciation of the same, leaned Trial Judge

held that, prosecution failed to established the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt and by above order, acquitted all three

accused, precisely which is assailed in this Appeal by the State.

PAGE 2 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

3. Learned APP would point out that, Respondent - original

Accused No.1 was an agriculture supervisor. He pointed out that,

complaint was received against him for amassing property from ill

gotten source. That, on receipt of such complaint, discrete inquiry was

said to be conducted, which indeed revealed that, during the period from

08.08.1984 to October, 2004, the salary income of accused no. 1 was

Rs.9,77,738/- p.a. That, it was revealed that, he had withdrawn GPF to

the tune of Rs.3,15,800/- and borrowed housing loan, car loan from

various banks. That, he had also maintained fixed deposits and drawn

policies. That, total income of Respondent accused from known source

was shown to the extent of Rs.27,36,825/-. That, he had shown expenses

to the extent of Rs.14,02,252/- but he had acquired properties worth

Rs.48,89,000/- and, therefore, it is his submission that, calculations

revealed that, on deducting expenditures incurred by accused to the

tune of Rs.14,02,252/- from Rs.27,36,825/-, the leftover to the tune of

Rs.13,34,573/- was deducted from his property income i.e. Rs.48,89,732/-

and, therefore, disproportionate property was worth Rs.35,55,159/-.

That, Respondent accused failed to provide account for the sources of

above acquisitions. He would further submit that, his wife and son had

abetted him in above act and, therefore, they are also charge-sheeted.

PAGE 3 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

4. Learned APP took this Court through the various

prosecution witnesses, who according to him, have verified the values of

the properties acquired by accused. That, there was mismatch between

the income and the financial capability of accused to acquire said

movable and immovable properties. That, as many as 19 witnesses had

been examined by prosecution. However, according to him, learned Trial

Court has adopted hyper technical approach and has unduly given

benefit of doubt to accused even when according to him, there was

overwhelming evidence placed by the prosecution before the Trial Court.

Resultantly, it is his submission that, due to incorrect and erroneous

analysis, acquittal has resulted, which he prays to set aside the

impugned judgment and order by allowing the Appeal.

5. Learned Counsel for Respondents - Accused, while

justifying the order of acquittal, pointed out that, prosecution has

miserably failed to prove the charges. He pointed out that, in fact,

investigating officer did not seek explanation of accused regarding the

properties and income fetched from the same. He pointed out that,

accused had irrigated land, which was distinct source of income apart

from salary. That, there were rental incomes also. According to him,

excess valuation is done and the valuers, who are engaged and made

witnesses, were not experts in the respective fields and, therefore, he

PAGE 4 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

justifies the order of acquittal.

6. He further pointed out that, here, in view of the charge,

investigation was expected at the hands of Deputy Superintendent of

Police ranking officer but here investigation got done at the hands of

Police Sub Inspector and mere formality of filing charge-sheet is done by

Dy.S.P. This, according to him, also weighed upon the Trial Court in not

accepting the case of prosecution. For said reason, he prays to dismiss

the appeal for want of merits.

BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT

7. PW 1 is panch to the house panchnama of accused, which is

at Exhibit 45; PW 2 is the vendor of seeds and fertilizer and he claims

that on 22.06.2005 accused purchased seeds worth Rs.1,675/- by making

cash payments and he placed receipt Exhibit 48 to that effect, however,

while under cross, he admitted that, the seeds sold by him were of

improved quality and, therefore, the same were costly. He further stated

that, in 2005 cost of cotton crop having gone up, it fetched 2000-2500

per quintal and for cotton crop, per hector Rs.5000-6000 were required

to be expended.

PW 3 is the Dy.S.P, who deposed in his evidence at Exhibit

53, that, Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption forwarded him an

PAGE 5 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

application for conducting discrete inquiry and after completing the

same, he sent the report to that extent. According to him, during the

check period from August, 1984 to October, 2004 known source of

accused was found to be Rs.27,36,825/-, whereas, expenditure was found

to be of Rs.14,02,252/- only and thereby discrete inquiry revealed that,

accused had amassed property worth Rs. 48,89,732/-. According to him,

after deducting the expenses, disproportionate assets to the extent of

129% of the total known source was revealed and, therefore, he lodged

complaint against accused no.1 and accused no.2 wife and son for

abetting.

While under cross, above witness admitted that, valuation

of immovable property i.e. landed property was shown only on the basis

of registered sale deed. He also admitted that, inquiry revealed that, the

land purchased by accused and his family were also sold and transacted

by way of registered sale deed. He answered that, based on previous

experience, he undertook the exercise of deriving agriculture income. He

fairly admits that, he does not seek advice of experts in agriculture

fields. He also admitted about not collecting chart of land revenue

assessment shown in the 7/12 extract. Rest is all denial.

PW 4 is the LIC agent and he deposed about purchasing

motorcycle from accused to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

PW 5 is the goldsmith who, in his evidence at Exhibit 54,

PAGE 6 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

has stated that, accused no.1 and 2 used to visit his shop and get

articles prepared of which bill was issued and he identified the bills

worth Rs.3,200/- and Rs.26,150/-.

While under cross, he admitted that, business is looked by

his son and he carries outside transaction. He also admitted that,

Exhibit 55 stands in the name of Gajanan Shriram. While under cross,

he is unable to state when accused had visited his shop.

PW 6 also another shop owner of fertilizers deposed that

accused purchased 7 bags of fertilizer worth Rs. 3,360/- of which he

issued bill at Exhibit 57.

While under cross, he admitted that accused was

progressive farmer and in the Sindkhed vicinity, there is better crop

fields from irrigated lands.

PW 7 is panch to panchnama of articles found in the house

of accused Exhibit 61. A list of scheduled items was drawn followed by

panchnama, which he identified.

While under cross, he admitted that, he is not an expert to

determine price of the articles found in the house of accused nor the

police officials were experts. He also admitted that, articles were

purchased long back. He admitted that, accused gave explanation that,

some of the ornaments, clothes were received by him and his family in

the form of gift. He is unable to state whether Maruti car was new or

PAGE 7 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

used one.

PW 8 a staff of Urban Cooperative Bank identified fixed

deposits Exhibits 63 to 66.

PW 9, who seems to be an assistant engineer in PWD,

claims to have carried out valuation of apartment and according to him,

its value was worth Rs.20,54,363/- and he identified the valuation report

issued by him. He also testified about valuation of properties standing

in the name of accused no.3 in Mhada Colony, shop standing in the

name of wife.

While under cross, this witness has admitted that, while

valuating the property, profit of the contractor and engineer goes to 10 –

15%. He admitted that, property in Mhada Colony was by accepting

price of the property, which is determined by Mhada Office.

PW 10 also a Sub-Divisional Engineer deposed about house

obtained under Mhada Scheme at Jalna worth Rs.56,000/- and it being

sold to accused no. 3 at Rs.55,000/- and installments being paid to

Mhada i.e. Rs.591/- per month.

PW 11 is the Official of Mhada and he deposed about PW 10

applying for transfer in the name of accused no. 3 and transfer charges

of Rs. 17,298/- being paid.

PW 12 is the Talathi, who, on request of ACB, visited

agricultural land of accused at Sawarkhed Tejan owned by accused and

PAGE 8 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

prepared panchnama, issued 7/12 extract, which he identified.

While under cross, he admitted that, land owned and

possessed by accused admeasuring 12 acres is irrigated land and of high

quality, whereas remaining land was non irrigated. He admitted that,

that time irrigated land fetched double the net income and non irrigated

fetched Rs.10,000-12,000/-. He also admitted that, accused used to

purchase land and later sell it on more price. He also admitted that,

accused is a progressive farmer of the village.

PW 13 a Manger of Urban Bank deposed about fixed

deposits standing in the name of accused nos. 2 & 3 and same being

withdrawn prematurely.

PW 14 also a Branch Manager testified about account of

accused no. 2 with the bank and having FDs worth Rs.30,000/- in the

name of accused no. 2 but while under cross he failed to bring record of

the bank and unable to stated interest accrued over FDS

PW 15 another Branch Manger of District Central

Cooperative Bank deposed about 3 FDs in the name of accused no.2

worth Rs.40,000/-.

PW 16 is the Sanctioning Authority.

PW 17 stated about he accompanying Talathi to the landed

property of accused but in cross he admitted that, it was not verified as

to exact how much land was belonging to accused no. 1 and how much

PAGE 9 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

was purchased and for exactly for what amount.

PW 18 is the RTO Clerk who gave information with regard

to Maruti Car and Hero Honda.

PW 19 is the investigating officer, who, in his cross, deposed

as under:

4.I calculated the expenditure of the accused to the

extent of 33% of gross salary of accused No.1. The gross

salary of accused No. 1 for the period from August, 1984

to July, 2005 was Rs. 16,61,332/-. I had shown the plot

and land purchased by the accused person during above

period in the expenditure. I had also shown the income

derived from sale of property in his income. I do not

know whether accused No. 2 had purchased land

bearing Gat No. 647 situated at village Tejas in the year

1992 and sold on 2.7.1998. There is no specific mention

of the total area of the ancestral property and the

specific area purchased by the accused in panchnama

Ex. 116. I had shown the income derived from the sale of

land by the accused person during above period in the

income of the accused person. It is not true that I did not

show the profit from sale in the income of the accused.

5.Some lands are dry crop lands and some lands are

Bagayat lands. I had shown separate income from dry

land and Bagavat land. It is not true that I shown

income of Rs. 1500/- per year per acre during above

period. On the basis of rates of agricultural product

available in the office of APMC and Agriculture

Commissioner, Pune, and the average income calculated

by Agri. Commissioner, Pune, for Buldhana District was

taken into consideration while assessing the income of

the land of the accused. I have calculated separate

income than the income shown by the complainant in his

PAGE 10 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

complaint. I have shown the entire income of accused

No. 1 in Schedule-B. At Sr. No. 31 in Schedule-B I had

shown the income derived from the land of accused No.1.

The accused No. 1 was having Ancestral agricultural

land admeasuring 8 before r hectare, 15 R. I cannot tell

whether 10 years before raid the father of or L accused

No.1 died. It is not true that I shown share of accused

no. 1 in ancestral property to the extent of one-sixth, but

actually his share was one-fourth. It is not true that

accused no. 1 was having total 24 acres agricultural

land, including ancestral agricultural land as well as

land purchased by him. It is not true that his entire

agricultural land was irrigated land. Accused No. 1 was

having 8 hectares, 15 R land out of ancestral land and

land admeasuring 6 hectares, 1 R land purchased in his

name and accused Nos. 2 and 3.

6.Telephone connection installed at the house of the

accused was in the name of his relative. The said

connection was in the name of father-in-law of accused

No.1. I do not know whether his father-in-law was

President of District Congress Committee, Buldhana. It

is not true that he often used to stay at the house of

accused at Jalna. Deposit of telephone is shown as Rs.

10,000/-. It is not true that the accused persons have no

concern with the bill of the telephone and deposit. I

cannot tell whether in the Maharashtra State cotton is

purchased by the Federation (Ekdhikar Kapus Kharedi

Sangh). I do not know whether payment of the price of

the cotton is (6-being paid by cheque by Federation. I did

not collect any information in this regard. It is not true

that approximately we have shown very meagre income

of land of the accused. I had not shown the income of the

accused per acre per year. Witness volunteers that I

showed the agricultural income approximately.

Accused in his favour has examined DW 1, who is the father

PAGE 11 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

of Accused no.2.

ANALYSIS

8. At the outset, in view of nature of charge, it is initially to be

seen, whether sanction to prosecute is valid as there is controversy to

this extent.

9. PW 16 seems to be the Authority, who has accorded

sanction. This witness at Exhibit 112 deposed about receiving papers,

verifying details therein and prima facie convinced for issuing sanction

of Accused no. 1, which he identified at Exhibit 113. However, while

under cross, he has answered that, he did not verify whether profits

received by accused from sale transaction of landed properties were

shown or not in the income of accused. He admitted about receipt of

draft sanction order and the same being put to use while according

sanction. He admitted that, he did not issue show cause notice to the

accused.

10. In the trial Court, learned Counsel for Accused has relied on

judgment of this Court in N. P. Lolitkar vs. CBI & Another, reported in

1993 Criminal Law Journal 2051, wherein, it has been observed that “in

absence of such an opportunity being offered to accused, question of he

failing to give satisfactory account or not does not arise. Here also, this

PAGE 12 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

witness admits that, he did not issue show cause notice and seek

explanation from accused. In fact, this Court has also noticed that,

prosecution has not procured the statements of assets and liabilities,

which, every government servant, during the life of his service,

periodically expected to handover employer government. For the above

reason, coupled with the use of draft sanction, sanction cannot be said

to be valid.

11. Now, as regards to remaining case of prosecution is

concerned about, amassing assets disproportionate to income, evidence

of PW 3, who is a complainant here is already reproduced above. He

seem to have admitted that, on receipt of complaint from one Sanjay

Bhalerao, discrete inquiry is completed and handed over its report to

the S.P., which was the source information for lodging complaint.

Though this witness has stated that, during the above said check

period, expenses incurred by accused to the tune of Rs. 14,02,252/- and

that accused had amassed property worth Rs.48,89,632/-, which

according to him, is 129% of total known source of income. While under

cross, this witness has admitted that, only on the basis of previous

enquiry, experience and agricultural study, figures are deduced. He

admitted that, no experts in respective fields were engaged. As pointed

out, complainant also is not sure and he has quoted the figures by

PAGE 13 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

approximation. Defence case is deliberate projection of excess income

without any basis. Such contentions are not refuted by prosecution.

12. As stated above, witnesses like dealers in seeds, fertilizers,

goldsmith are all examined to demonstrate that accused transacted

with them. These witnesses have merely placed on record bills and

vouchers of articles purchased. Goldsmith has admitted that, his son

runs the shop and as such, son is not made to step in the witness box to

demonstrate the accused purchased the said articles. Again, whatever

articles were allegedly found during home visit, are family acquisition

by way of gifts. Though efforts are made to examine Talathi on the point

of irrigated land, this witness has merely placed on record 7/12 extract.

Prosecution is aware that, accused has over 12 acres irrigated land and

prosecution’s own witnesses are admitted that, accused was a

progressive farmer. Crops like, cotton, which are cash crop, were ripped.

There is no evidence to show the agricultural income earned from above

agricultural activity. Witnesses like junior engineer in PWD is examined

on the point of houses and shops owned by either accused or standing in

the name of his son. This witness though has given valuation, he is not

shown to be an expert valuer in structures. There is no foundation for

the figures deduced by this witness.

PAGE 14 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

13. Witnesses are also examined that, accused, his wife had

maintained fixed deposits with various cooperative banks. There is

nothing unusual to create fixed deposits when there is other lawful

source of income like irrigated agricultural land. Therefore, even on

such count, case of prosecution comes under shadow of doubt. Prices

quoted by the witnesses are apparently approximation. Resultantly,

what basis have been adopted for deducing the valuation of the property

is not clarified by the prosecution.

14. Thus, on close scrutiny of above discussed evidence, firstly,

no base or foundation is provided for deducing the prices of the

properties. As stated above, witnesses are quoting prices on

approximation and none of them admittedly are expert valuers in

respective fields. Defence case is of deliberate projection of excess

figures. As stated above, no explanation has been sought from the

accused prior to launching prosecution. Had such exercise been

undertaken by investigating machinery, accused would have got

opportunity to explain the acquisitions. Therefore, with such weak

evidence, this Court does not find any error on the part of Trial Court in

refusing to accept the said of prosecution to hold accused guilty.

Resultantly, there being no merit in the appeal, the same is deserves to

be dismissed being devoid of merits.

PAGE 15 OF 16

APEAL-462-11.odt

15. In view of above discussion, following order is passed:

ORDER

1.Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

2.Pending criminal application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE , J.)

Umesh

PAGE 16 OF 16