{1} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 361 OF 2013

. The State of Maharashtra

Through Police Station, Soyegaon,

Dist. Aurangabad. ..Appellant

Versus

1.Ramesh Vitthalrao Thakur

Age: 36 years, Occu.: Service,

R/o. Plot No.10/1, Saptshrungi Society,

N-7, Cidco, Aurangabad.

2.Prakash Madhav Suryawanshi

Age : 48 years, Occu.: Service,

R/o. Sindurni, Khatik Galli,

Tq.Jamner, Dist.Jalgaon. …..Respondent

…..

APP for Appellant : Shri P.P. Dawalkar

Advocate for Respondents : Shri C.P. Sengaonkar (through VC)

…..

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

RESERVED ON : 17 MARCH, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 18 MARCH, 2026

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal challenges judgment and order dated 28-08-2012

passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Special

Case (ACB) No.10 of 2010, in which accused was tried for offence

u/s 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and 12 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. 2026:BHC-AUG:11896

{2} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

FACTS IN BRIEF

2. In brief, prosecution was launched against both accused, who

were working in Panchayat Samiti in the capacity of Block Education

Officer and Clerk respectively on accusations of demand of

Rs.30,000/- to avoid action of suspension of PW1 complainant, an

Incharge Head Master in Central Primary School, Jarandi,

Tq.Soygaon, Dist.Aurangabad, in pursuance to inspection of the

school carried out on 19-01-2010. It is a specific case of prosecution

that, accused no.1 demanded above amount through accused no.2

and accordingly, accused no.2 accepted it. On complaint of PW1 to

above extent, ACB authorities entertained it, planned and executed

trap and after apprehending both accused, chargesheeted them and

their trial ended up in acquittal. Hence, State has come in appeal.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant State :

3. Learned APP would apprise this Court about above

background and would submit that, there is no dispute that accused

no.1 was working as Block Education Officer in Panchayat Samiti,

Soygaon. That, he had conducted inspection of the school of which

complainant was Incharge Head Master. That, certain irregularities

{3} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

were noticed during inspection and on the basis of same, action of

suspension was proposed to be taken, but to drop the same, through

accused no.2, accused no.1 has demanded bribe.

4.He further pointed out that, on receipt of complaint to above

extent from PW1 complainant, PW4 Investigating Officer had

planned trap. In the said trap, PW2 shadow panch was engaged.

That, both of them had conducted verification of demand and pre-

trap panchanama was drawn on getting convinced about demand.

That, both of them were given necessary instructions. PW1

complainant was directed to pay bribe on demand whereas PW2

shadow pancha was asked to be watchful and hear the conversation

of demand and also both of them approached accused in their office

to comply the demand. To that extent, both these witnesses are

consistent. However, learned trial court erred in holding such

witnesses contradicting each other and are at variance.

5.He next submitted that, here, demand as well as acceptance

was cogently proved and therefore, essential ingredients for

attracting charges were very much available in the prosecution

evidence, but the same have been incorrectly appreciated. According

{4} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

to him, minor variances are given undue importance when the core

of the prosecution had remained intact.

6.Lastly, he submitted that PW3 Sanctioning Authority was also

examined and after due application of mind, sanction was accorded.

Therefore, on all counts and scores, case of prosecution was proved

beyond reasonable doubt and ought to have been accepted for

recording conviction, but learned trial Court having failed, he urges

to interfere by allowing the appeal.

On behalf of Respondents/Accused :

7. Per contra Shri Sengaonkar, learned counsel, who appeared

through Video Conference, would justify the order of acquittal by

submitting that, at the outset, there was no motive to put up demand

as according to him, it has come in prosecution evidence i.e. none

other than Sanctioning Authority that, accused no.1 was not

competent to take any action. That, PW1 complainant has himself

admitted to that extent in cross-examination and therefore, there is

no question of putting up demand of bribe. He emphasized that,

what PW1 complainant has deposed is mere an apprehension of

some action likely to be taken, but no such action was taken and for

{5} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

the more reason, there was no motive to put up demand.

8.He further took this court through the evidence of PW1

complainant and PW2 shadow pancha and would point out that,

there are glaring inconsistencies in the testimony of these witnesses

even when they claim to be together at the time of demand

verification as well as main trap. He pointed out that, events

narrated by each of them during alleged trap are distinct and do not

tally with each other rendering their evidence doubtful. According to

him, neither of them are lending support to each other.

9.He further pointed out that, according to PW1 complainant

tainted currency was kept in an envelop and handed over to accused

no.2 in similar manner, but contrary to it, PW2 shadow pancha

deposed that, direct currency was handed over and even counted by

accused no.2. Therefore, according to him, both witnesses are at

variance on material counts.

10.He pointed out that, there is nothing to suggest that accused

no.2 had demanded bribe on behalf of accused no.1 and moreover, it

is prosecution case that, accused no.1 had never made demand with

{6} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

PW1 complainant to which even complainant has admitted in cross-

examination. For above reasons, he questions the credibility and

veracity of prosecution story.

11.He further pointed out that, according to PW1 complainant

demand verification was got satisfied by voice recording, but PW2

shadow pancha does not support PW1 complainant on that count and

it is pointed out that, there is no transcript of alleged recorded

conversation.

12.Criticizing the case of prosecution on valid sanction, he

submitted that, had the PW3 Sanctioning Authority really applied its

mind, the said authority would have noticed that there was no

substance in the proposed prosecution as he too has admitted that

accused no.1 was incompetent to initiate any action. Lastly, he

submitted that judgment of trial Court being well reasoned and based

on correct appreciation of available evidence, needs no interference.

EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL COURT

This being appeal, a brief account of prosecution evidence is

reproduced as under :

{7} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

13.PW1 Rajendra Sonawane, complainant has deposed at exh.8

on the point of he working as Incharge Head Master of above named

school. He testified that on 19-01-2010, Block Education Officer and

his staff inspected the school wherein deficiencies were found

regarding his work. On 20-01-2010, when he visited Panchayat

Samiti, he claims to have learnt from accused no.2, a Clerk, that

action of suspension from service would be taken against him. That,

accused no.1, Block Education Officer is going to forward report to

Zilla Parishad and to stop the said action, he will have to pay

Rs.60,000/- to accused no.1. Expressing inability to pay so much,

PW1 complainant claims to have left the office. Further on

02-02-2010, when he again went to Panchayat Samiti, he was served

with a show cause notice for the deficiencies noted in the inspection

and therefore, he himself claims to have approached accused no.2,

who had told him that to avoid suspension, he has to pay

Rs.60,000/-. But again he told his inability to pay such amount and

then accused no.2 told him that, he will have to pay atleast

Rs.30,000/- and he further claims to have realized from accused no.2

about accused no.1 demanding Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, he lodged

report exh.9. In further evidence, he stated visiting ACB office,

arrival of panchas, and then necessary instructions being given by

{8} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

PW4 Investigating Officer..

In paragraph 6 of the examination-in-chief, he stated the

events which took place in the ACB office and then accompanying

PW2 shadow pancha to the office of accused at 11:30 a.m., i.e. in the

office of accused no.1, but again meeting accused no.2 and made

enquiry about accused no.1. According to him, accused no.2 told

him that accused no.1 is not in the office and he would come at

12:30 p.m. and therefore, they came back towards raiding party and

then, again PW4 Investigating Officer decided to send them back at

around 01:00 p.m. This time he deposed that, when he had

approached accused no.2, at that time, he had told to give amount to

him, if it is brought, but PW1 complainant expressed his desire to

meet accused no.1 and talk with him.

In paragraph 7 of examination-in-chief, he narrated about

accompanying PW2 shadow pancha at 01:00 p.m. and this time, he

met accused no.1 in the office and he claims to have talked with

accused no.1 informing him that accused no.2, Clerk had told him

about report of his suspension and had demanded amount and so he

had come to talk to accused no.1, but accused no.1 told him that he

is busy in welcoming Sabhapati and asked him to come at 04:00 p.m.

with amount of Rs.30,000/-. All this was again reported to PW4

{9} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

Investigating Officer, who prepared panchanama and thereafter, he

deposed about preparations being made for application of anthracene

powder.

In paragraph 11 of examination-in-chief, this witness has

narrated that he and PW2 shadow pancha went to office of accused

no.1 at 04:00 p.m. and when accused no.1 was accordingly

approached, this witness states that, he told accused no.1 that he had

brought the amount. According to this witness, accused no.1 told to

pay amount to accused no.2. He also further deposed that, at that

time he told accused no.1 that he has brought the amount as agreed.

He further deposed that, accordingly, he and PW2 shadow panch

went towards accused no.2 and told him that, accused no.1 had

directed to give the amount to him, but accused no.2 initially asked

them to wait for some time and that he would first talk with accused

no.1 and accordingly accused no.2 went to the office of accused no.1

and complainant and pancha also followed him. This witness

deposed that accused no.1 instructed by making sign to accused no.2

to accept the amount and thereafter, accused no.2 suggested for

going out for taking tea and they went to “Jai Bhole Hotel” and even

on way, accused no.2 questioned PW1 complainant whether PW2

was from ACB office and he was told that he was rather, his father-in-

{10} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

law and that he had arranged the said amount. After taking tea,

accused no.2 demanded Rs.30,000/-, which was removed with right

hand and held before accused no.2, who accepted the amount, first

counted it with both hands and then kept in the right side pocket of

pant and this was followed by relay of signal, followed by

apprehension by raiding party.

While under cross-examination, complainant had admitted that

on 02-02-2010 itself he had received information that in all seven

Officers were in the inspection team including accused no.1. He

admitted that, in inspection, directions were given to him to comply

to deficiencies and submit report to Block Education Officer. He

admitted that, at such time, he was aware that only Chief Executive

Officer of Zilla Parishad can suspend him and he merely had

apprehension that, if accused no.1 submitted report to Zilla Parishad,

then action would be taken. He admitted that, he was directed to

submit explanation, but except him, all other Teachers had tendered

explanation. He admitted that, till lodging complaint, he was not

served with any notice, but according to him, he was knowing that

notice would be issued to him. However, he admitted that he was

asked to come after receipt of notice and he further candidly

admitted that, other Teachers were pressurizing him to take action in

{11} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

capacity of Head Master against accused no.1. He admitted that,

before laying trap, PW4 Investigating Officer had told him that, if

trap is not successful, then action would be taken against him. He

admitted in paragraph 17 of the cross-examination that accused no.1

never demanded bribe amount from him. He is unable to remember

whether he has stated in his statement that on 02-02-2010, bribe

amount was demanded to avoid action of suspension. He admitted

that, accused no.1 had no power to suspend him or dismiss him. In

further cross-examination, he answered that PW2 shadow pancha

was directed to use tape-recorder at the time of verification demand

as well as at the time of actual acceptance and even tape recorder

was handed over to PW2 shadw pancha, but he admitted that, he had

not seen the tape-recorder, however, he claims to have heard the

conversation. He is unable to state the manner in which accused

no.1 made sign to accused no.2 to accept the bribe and further

admitted that, he did not see said sign at all. He admitted that,

accused no.2 was apprehended at the counter of the hotel while

making payment.

Omissions are brought in paragraph 20 pertaining to contents

of supplementary statement on the point of he meeting accused no.2

and being asked by accused no.2 to give the amount if brought, but

{12} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

this witness telling him in turn that he would first talk to accused

no.1. Omission is also brought to the extent that when he met

accused no.1, he told him that whether amount is brought as agreed,

but such material was missing from his supplementary statement. He

also admitted that, before deposing, copies of complaint and

supplementary statement were handed over to him for reading.

14.PW2 Hemant Devidasrao Satalkar is the shadow pancha and in

initial examination-in-chief, he stated about approaching ACB office,

meeting complainant, instructions being given by Investigating

Officer to hear the conversation and accompanying complainant and

therefore, he accompanied complainant to the office of Block

Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Soygaon. According to him,

accused no.1 was not present there and therefore, they approached

accused no.2, who told them that accused no.1 had not come, but

had told accused no.2 to take whatever is brought, but complainant

told that he wanted to meet accused no.1 and therefore, they went

back to the raiding party and informed Investigating Officer, but

according to this witness, it was informed that, accused no.2 has told

that accused no.1 is likely to come back at 01:30 p.m. According to

this witness, he and complainant again went to the office of accused

{13} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

no.1 at 02:15 p.m., but at that time, accused no.1 had not come and

therefore, they stayed in the office as they had learnt from accused

no.2 that, accused no.1 is likely to come in 30-45 minutes.

Accordingly, between 03:00 p.m. to 03:30 p.m., accused no.1 reached

and he and complainant entered in his cabin and complainant asked

what has happened about his work, upon which accused no.1 told

that he does not have time as Sabhapati is coming in the office and

accordingly, they were directed to come at 04:30 p.m. He further

deposed that, accused no.1 asked the complainant whether he has

brought the thing which was told and it be given to accused no.2.

According to him, at that time, accused no.1 asked complainant

about this witness and he was told that he was his father-in-law and

therefore, accused no.1 asked this witness to leave the chamber and

to wait outside. Only so much talks had taken place in his presence

and after five minutes, complainant came out and told this witness

that they have to go back again to raiding party and accordingly, they

went and informed Investigating Officer about such events and this

witness claims that, at that time, he realized that accused no.1 was

demanding amount to complainant to avoid proposed action.

Then he further deposed in paragraph 5 about events took

place at 4:00 p.m. and according to this witness, when they were

{14} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

entering the office of Panchayat Samiti, accused no.2 was seen

coming out of the office and at that time, complainant offered him to

come for tea and accused no.2 consented and they all went to have

tea. According to this witness, he himself, complainant, accused

no.2, and another person and as such all four went for tea. They had

tea and accused no.2 told complainant whether he had brought the

thing, which was agreed and if it is brought, it should be given to him

and accordingly, complainant removed the pocket from right side of

his pant pocket and gave to accused no.2, who accepted and directly

kept the pocket in the front side of pant pocket.

ANALYSIS

15.Thus, on analysis of above evidence, as submitted, witnesses

PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha, who were in each others

company, are not consistent. On meticulous re-appreciation, it is

emerging that, PW1 complainant merely apprehended action and till

filing complaint, he was also not served with any notice. Evidence of

PW1 complainant shows that, his entire interaction was with accused

no.2, a Clerk. Apparently thus, there is no demand by accused no.1

and there is admission to that extent by PW1 complainant in cross-

examination. According to PW1 complainant, he has learnt from

accused no.2, that action of suspension would be taken, but

{15} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

admittedly, no action has ever been taken thereafter in the backdrop

of alleged inspection report. It is noticed that, initial demand is also

attributed to accused no.2, but at the instance of accused no.1.

However, there is no material to show that accused no.2 was acting

on instructions of accused no.1. Even initial bargain of Rs.60,000/-

to Rs.30,000/- is also with accused no.2, who is a Clerk. PW1

Complainant seems to have presumed that, accused no.1 has

demanded amount through accused no.2.

16.It is emerging that initially PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow

pancha approached office of accused nos.1 and 2 at 11:30 a.m. but

accused no.1 was not present. According to PW1 complainant, at the

instance of Investigating Officer, they again went at 01:00 p.m. but

even at that time, accused no.1 was not present and both witnesses

claim that they have learnt from accused no.2, that accused no.1

would come after 30-45 minutes. Therefore, till such time, there was

no contact between PW1 complainant and accused no.1. Even as

pointed out that after meeting accused no.1 in his chamber, PW1

complainant himself prior to any demand by accused no.1, seems to

have offered bribe as he declared immediately after approaching

accused no.1 that he has brought the amount. He further deposed

{16} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

that said amount was brought as agreed, but apparently there is no

evidence about prior meeting or agreement between accused no.1

and PW1 complainant. Further, witnesses are stating that accused

no.1 made sign to accused no.2 to accept, but in cross-examination,

they are unable to state the mode or manner of sign. Further

complainant himself has admitted that on being pressurized by other

Teachers, he has lodged complaint and deposed and agreed that

Investigating Officer has threatened him about consequences, if trap

is not successful.

17.There is admittedly no evidence about conversation of demand

being recorded. PW1 complainant though speaks about it and

deposed that PW2 shadow pancha was made to carry voice recorder,

PW2 has not uttered any thing to that extent. Even material

omissions are brought while under cross-examination regarding the

contents of the supplementary statement, which are discussed above.

18.Similarly, PW2 shadow pancha, who is expected to lend

corroboration to PW1 complainant, who has deposed that when they

approached office of accused no.1, he was not present and therefore,

they approached accused no.2, but according to this witness, at that

{17} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

moment itself, accused no.2 suggested giving whatever is brought.

However, PW1 complainant insisted to meet accused no.1 personally.

But as stated above, even during meeting with accused no.1, PW1

complainant himself has offered bribe prior to it being demanded.

PW2 shadow pancha is found to be deposing about visit being paid to

the office of accused no.1 at 02:15 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. and not 04:00

p.m. as stated by PW1 complainant.

19.On the contrary, evidence of PW2 shadow pancha goes to show

that after entering chamber of accused no.1, he was asked to leave

the chamber and after five minutes thereafter, PW1 complainant has

come out and suggested to going back to raiding party. This witness

claims that, at such time, he realized that there was demand by

accused, but he has not specified which of the accused i.e. either

accused no.1 or accused no.2. Moreover, even accused no.2 is

reported to have asked “whether thing is brought” and if it is brought

then it be given. There is no reference of demand of money.

20.Further PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha are also

found at variance on the events that took place after approaching

accused no.2 because according to PW1 complainant, after

{18} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

approaching accused no.2 at his place, he was offered to come for tea

and thereafter they left, but according to PW2 shadow pancha, while

they were returning back to office of accused no.1, at that time,

accused no.2 was seen leaving office and then there was offer of tea.

PW2 shadow pancha speaks of four persons going for taking tea and

he specifically stated about he himself, informant, accused no.2 and

another person accompanying them for taking tea. Who is this

mystery man i.e. fourth person is not understood and if at all there

was any, then he would have been a crucial witness, but said person

does not seem to have been named or examined.

21.Similarly, PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha are at

variance on the point of manner of paying tainted currency as

according to PW1 complainant, currency in a pocket being handed

over and it being first counted and then pocketed, but PW2 shadow

pancha differs on this count, as according to him, accused no.2

directly accepted the currency and pocketed it.

Therefore, for above reasons, there are indeed variances in the

testimony of PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha rendering

the case of prosecution doubtful.

22.Therefore, though there is sanction and though recovery is

{19} CRI APPEAL 361 OF 2013

effected that too from accused no.2, there is no motive nor there is

any demand by accused no.1 nor there is any material to suggest that

accused no.2 acted at the behest of accused no.1 and accepted the

bribe. Evidence of PW1 complainant shows that he admitted that he

was pressurized by both other Teachers as well as Investigating

Officer. Resultantly, evidence of prosecution is not free from doubt.

23.Perused the judgment under challenge, substantive evidence

adduced by prosecution seems to have been appreciated and

conclusion seems to have been drawn. What was the perversity or

illegality or error in the same has not been demonstrated so as to

interfere in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, following

order is passed :

ORDER

Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )

JUDGE

SPT