[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sukhdeo Pandurang Jadhav vs State Of Mah on 1 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:33000
496.09apeal
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.496 OF 2009
Sukhdeo Pandurang Jadhav,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o.: Plot No.8, Shivgiri Housing Society,
Harsul, Aurangabad ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ....RESPONDENT
.....
Mr N. S. Ghanekar, Advocate h/f Mr Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for
Appellant
Ms A. S. Mantri, APP for Respondent/State
.....
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 07th NOVEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 01st DECEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT:
-
1. By this appeal, the appellant (accused) has challenged the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 25/09/2009,
passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Aurangabad in Special
Case No.06/2005, convicting him for the offence punishable under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for shot 'the said Act').
2. The prosecution case in brief is as under :-
496.09apeal
Appellant Sukhdeo Pandurang Jadhav was working as a
Junior Clerk in the office of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Aurangabad. PW-2/Sachin Pandurang Sudame is practicing Advocate
at District and Sessions Court, Aurangabad. His client, namely,
Pandurang M. Gund had obtained loan from Mahila Nagari Sahakari
Bank Ltd., Aurangabad. Since the said loan was not repaid, the Bank
had filed suit bearing Suit No.577/2001 under the provisions of
Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before
the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. The said
suit was decided against the said client of PW-2 Sachin Sudame vide
order dated 07/11/2001. Being aggrieved by the said, the appeal came
to be preferred before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Aurangabad, which was also dismissed. For the purpose of appeal
before the High Court, the certified copy of the decision dated
07/11/2001, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Aurangabad was required, and therefore, said Pandurang Gund had
engaged PW-2/Sachin Sudame as an Advocate to obtain certified copy
of the said decision given in the Suit No.577/2001. After obtaining
vakalatnama from Pandurang Gund, PW-2 Sachin Sudame submitted
application in the office of Taluka Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Aurangabad on 22/11/2004. Thereafter, he had gone to
496.09apeal
collect copy of challan from the said office in the evening. The present
applicant/accused was looking after the work of issuing certified
copies of the decision. Initially, accused told PW-2/Sachin Sudame
that an amount of Rs.50/- will have to be deposited in the Bank under
challan for obtaining certified copy of the decision and then he would
obtain signature of his superior on the challan and give it to him.
Accordingly, appellant told PW-2 Sudame to come on 24/11/2004.
Accordingly, on 24/11/2004, PW-2 Sudame went to office of appellant
and the appellant handed over the challan of Rs.50/-, which bears
signature of his superior. The appellant then told PW-2 Sudame that,
after depositing Rs.50/- under challan and produce the said challan
before him, he will have to be given an additional amount of Rs.100/-.
He further told PW-2 Sudame that he would issue certified copy of the
decision only after PW-2 will paid additional amount of Rs.100/-, else,
he would put PW-2 Sudame into trouble by approaching the office
repeatedly and would not issue certified copy. Upon that, PW-2
Sudame told the appellant that his client would not give Rs.100/-.
Further, accused insisted PW-2 Sudame that, unless he paid additional
amount of Rs.100/-, he would not issue certified copy of the decision
to his client. PW-2 Sudame unwillingly agreed to give Rs.100/- to the
appellant. Thereafter, PW-2 Sudame deposited an amount of Rs.50/-
496.09apeal
under challan in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Office Shahagunj
Branch, Aurangabad. However, the appellant/accused had made
demand of Rs.100/- as bribe beside challan amount.
3. Since PW-2 Sudame was not willing to pay bribe of
Rs.100/-, he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau Office (ACB
office), Aurangabad. He met PW-4/Anil Gaikwad, Police Inspector
and narrated the aforesaid facts, which were reduced in writing as per
his narration at Exhibit-12. Accordingly, two employees, namely
Sohel Ahemad Khan and Syed Abud Athar were called to act as panch
witnesses. After completing formalities, they formed the raiding team
and appropriate instructions were given to the members of the raiding
team. PW-4/Anil Gaikwad, P.I. gave instructions to the complainant,
panchas and members of raiding team. Complainant was instructed to
go to the office of accused for the purpose of work alongwith panch
No.1/Sohel Khan and if accused makes demand of bribe money, then
to handover tainted currency note to him and upon acceptance of the
same, transmit signal by scratching over the neck by hand. Similarly,
panch No.1/Sohel was also instructed to remain with complainant and
note down the events and happenings that would take place at the spot
of incident. Panch No.2/ was instructed to remain with the raiding
team and keep watch on the events and happenings. Accordingly,
496.09apeal
complainant and panch witnesses as per pre-planned went to office of
the accused. Complainant asked accused about the copy of the
decision. The accused asked the complainant, whether he has brought
the challan, to which complainant answered in the affirmative and he
produced the same to the accused. Accused kept the said challan in the
drawer of the table. Accused asked the complainant to come on
Monday to collect the copy of the decision. However, complainant
told accused that, on Monday he is going out of station and he would
sent his client to him to collect the copy of decision. The accused then
demanded bribe of Rs.100/-. Complainant removed tainted currency
note from the left pocket of his shirt by his right hand and held before
the accused. Accused accepted the said currency note by his right
hand and kept it in the left pocket of his shirt. As per pre-plan,
complainant came out and transmitted signal by scratching over the
neck. Accused also came out of the office behind him. At that time,
PW-4/Anil Gaikwad, P.I., alongwith his staff members came there as
per plan. Panch witness No.1 told PW-4 about acceptance of bribe by
the appellant. PW-4/Anil Gaikwad introduced himself to the accused.
Two police men caught hold both the hands of accused and brought
him in the office. The hands of members of raiding party were
inspected under ultra violet light and shown to the accused that their
496.09apeal
hands do not show shining of anthracene powder. The hands of
accused were inspected under ultra violet light whereupon his right
hand fingers showed shining of anthracene powder. PW-4 asked
accused as to where he had kept tainted currency note to which
accused made gesture towards his chest pocket of shirt. Panch No.2
was instructed to remove tainted currency note from the left pocket of
the shirt of accused, and accordingly, he did the same. Accordingly,
the said currency note was seen under ultra violet light whereupon it
showed greenish shining of anthracene powder. All the formalities of
recording spot panchnama and seizure of documents came to be
conducted. The accused was asked to give explanation. He gave
explanation at Exhibit-23. Accused was taken to the Police Station,
Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad, where PW-4 lodged report, on the basis of
which crime bearing C.R. No.3129/2004 came to be registered on
25/11/2004 against the accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The accused came to be arrested under arrest
panchnama. All the investigation papers were sent to ACB office to
obtain sanction to prosecute the accused. PW-1/Dr. Anand Balwantrao
Jogdand, Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Aurangabad accorded sanction to prosecute the accused. After
496.09apeal
completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against
the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)
punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
4. Vide Exhibit-4, charges were came to be framed against
the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to
be tried. His defence is of total denial. During the trial, the
prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses. PW-1/Dr. Anand
Balwantrao Jogdand, Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Aurangabad was examined at Exhibit-6, who accorded sanction to
prosecute the accused vide Exhibit-7 on 15/02/2005. PW-2/Sachin
Pandurang Sudame, Advocate, who is complainant was examined at
Exhibit-11. PW-3/Sohel Ahmad Khan, who was shadow Panch
witness was examined at Exhibit-18 and PW-4/Anil Narayanrao
Gaikwad, P.I. who was Investigating Officer in this case was examined
at Exhibit-26. After recording the evidence and hearing the learned
Advocate for the parties, the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act)
Aurangabad, vide order dated 25/09/2009 in Special Case No.06/2005
convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under
496.09apeal
Sections 7 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year
and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment
for three months. He was further convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences of imprisonment
were directed to be run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the
impugned order of conviction, the appellant has approached this Court
in the present appeal for quashing and setting aside the same.
5. Heard Mr Ghanekar, learned Advocate holding for
Advocate Mr Chatterji for appellant and learned APP Ms Mantri for
respondent/State.
6. Learned Advocate for the appellant vehemently submits
that, according to the prosecution, the first demand is dated 24/11/2004
and on the next date i.e. on 25/11/2004, complaint came to be filed in
the ACB office, Aurangabad. According to him, there is no demand
verification and on the basis of complaint, directly trap was laid.
Therefore, there is no proper fairness and credibility of the trap. He
further submits that the complainant thrusted the amount in the pocket
496.09apeal
of the accused and after thrusting the said amount, when the
complainant came out of office to give signal to the raiding team, it is
admitted fact that the accused/appellant came behind the complainant
to return that thrusted amount. This fact is also admitted as the
accused himself has given written statement after the trap to the
Investigating Officer. Not only this, shadow panch witness No.3 also
admitted the said fact of accused following the complainant. He then
submits that there was at all no necessity of obtaining the certified
copy of the decision of the case, as certified copy of the order which
was required for appeal before the High Court was already disposed of
in the year 2001. The complainant had also preferred revision against
the order which was against him. Therefore, the complaint lodged by
PW-2 itself is baseless. In support of his submission, he points out that
the client of PW-2, namely Pandurang Gund had obtained loan from
Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Aurangabad and since the loan was
not repaid, the bank had initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 against him. In the said
proceedings, decision was given against Pandurang Gund and
therefore, a revision petition was filed before Joint Divisional
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. The said revision
petition was also dismissed. Client of PW-2 Sudame wanted to file
496.09apeal
appeal against the order passed in Suit No.577/2001 before the High
Court and for that purpose, certified copy of judgment and order was
required. Thus, Mr Ghanekar submits that there was no at all necessity
for complainant Sudame to obtain certified copy as the said
proceedings was already disposed of in the year 2001.
7. Mr Ghanekar further submits that the room where the
accused was having office, size of which was hardly 15x8 feets. There
were four tables in the said room and no arrangement of chair in front
of table, but there was facility of bench. The other colleague
employees were also used to seat in the said room. He then submits
that at the time of raid, there were three employees already occupying
their chairs in the said room and their tables were adjoining. Two
visitors were also sitting on the bench when the panch witness as well
as complainant came to the office. Neither they had examined by the
prosecution nor their statements have been recorded. According to
him, the room size was such a small that, if the talks as regards giving
bribe had taken place, definitely in that circumstances, other persons
might have heard what transpired between complainant and the
accused. Thus, on this count, the demand becomes suspicious and
therefore, not proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence.
It is also admitted by the panch witnesses that, after the complainant
496.09apeal
handed over the amount to the accused, the accused followed him.
Thus, the defence is getting corroboration from the admission given by
the panch itself. In this case, it is clear that amount is not demanded
and accepted, but it is thrusted in the pocket of accused. He also
challenge the conviction on the ground of non-application of mind
while issuing sanction order. He invites attention of this Court to the
evidence of PW-1. The said witness has unequivocally admitted that
the draft of sanction order was received from the ACB office. He also
admitted in his evidence that applicant had no power to put signature
on the certified copy, and therefore, it is clear that sanction order was
issued without application of mind. He, therefore, submits that the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt and thus, prays for allowing of the present appeal.
8. In support of his submission, Mr. Ghanekar, learned
Advocate for the appellant, has relied upon the following judgments:-
"i) P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. Dist. Inspector of
Police and Anr. - AIR 2015 SC 3549, (Full Bench,
Supreme Court),
ii) C.M. Girish Babu V. C.B.I. Cochin, High Court
Kerala - AIR 2009 SC 2022 (Supreme Court),
iii) M.K. Harshan Vs. State of Kerala - (1996) 11 SCC
720,
496.09apeal
(iv) C.B.I. v. Ashok Kumar Aggrawal - AIR 2014 SC
827 (Supreme Court),
(v) Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab - AIR
1973 SC 498,
(vi) State of Maharashtra Through C.B.I. v. Mahesh G.
Jain - 2014 ALL SCR 177,
(vii) Panalal Damodhar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra-
AIR 1979, SC 1191,
(viii) B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P. - 2014 ALL SCR 1619,
ix) Mukhtiar Singh (Since Deceased) Through his
Legal Representative v. State of Punjab - (2017) 8 SCC
126."
9. Per contra, learned APP Ms Mantri appearing for the
respondent/State has strenuously supported the impugned judgment
and order passed by learned Special Judge. According to her, learned
Special Judge, after analyzing evidence brought on record in proper
perspective, has rightly delivered the impugned judgment and order
and has rightly convicted the appellant. There is no scope of
interference in the impugned judgment. She, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the present appeal.
10. After hearing learned advocates for the parties, I have
gone through the record and proceedings of the case minutely. Upon
perusal of the documents, it can be seen that PW-2 Sudame was
496.09apeal
engaged by Pandurang Gund who had borrowed loan from Mahila
Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Aurangabad and on failure to repay the
said loan, the Bank had initiated proceedings against him under
Section 101 of the Cooperative Societies Act before the Deputy
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. The said proceedings
resulted against the said Pandurang Gund on 07/11/2001. Against the
said order, said Pandurang preferred appeal before the Joint Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad which was also dismissed.
Thereafter, Pandurang had to file appeal before the High Court for
which he was required certified copy of the decision of the
proceedings before the Deputy Registrar, which proceedings was
already disposed of in 2001. Therefore, learned Advocate for the
appellant is right in submitting that the there was no necessity of the
certified copy as the said decision was delivered in the year 2001,
against which, appeal was also preferred by said Pandurang.
11. It is required to be noted that, without verification of the
demand of bribe, relying on the complaint of the complainant, the
prosecution had laid the trap for appellant, which do not show
reliability of the trap. It is also required to be noted that panch witness
No.3 had admitted the fact that after complainant came out of the
office of appellant, the appellant also followed the complainant for
496.09apeal
returning the said money. Thus, it becomes clear that amount is not
demanded and accepted, but it is thrusted in the pocket of accused.
12. Further, it is pertinent to note that the room of the office of
the appellant was of small size admeasuring 15x8 feets. In the said
room, four tables were there and no arrangement of chair in front of
table to sit. At the time of raid, three employees were occupying the
chairs. Two visitor were also there in the room who were sitting on the
bench. If there was talk of complainant and appellant in respect of
demand of bribe of money, the persons who were present in the said
room might have heard the conversation between them. The
prosecution has neither examined the said persons, who were present
in the room, nor their statements have been recorded. Thus, the
demand becomes suspicious.
13. It is also required to be noted that PW-1/Dr. Anand
Balwantrao Jogdand, Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Aurangabad who was examined at Exhibit-6, who accorded sanction to
prosecute the accused vide Exhibit-7 on 15/02/2005. According to
him, the draft of sanction order was received from the ACB office. He
also admitted in his evidence that applicant had no power to put
496.09apeal
signature on the certified copy, and therefore, it is clear that sanction
order was issued without application of mind.
14. Considering the evidence brought on record, the
prosecution is not justified in establishing the charges against the
appellant. In order to prove the charges for the offence punishable
under Section 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the PC
Act, the proof of demand of illegal gratification is absolutely necessary
as it is sine qua non of the offence. If the prosecution fails to prove
this demand of illegal gratification, the charge against the appellant
therefore, for the aforesaid offences would fail. It is clearly
established in several judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court including the judgments cited by learned advocate for the
appellant (supra) that mere possession and recovery of currency notes
from the possession of the accused, without proof of demand would
not establish the offence under under Section 13 (1) (d) punishable
under Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act. In absence of proof of demand
and illegal gratification and use of corrupt or illegal means to obtain
any valuable or pecuniary advantage, it cannot be said that the offence
of taking bribe is proved. Thus, the proof of demand has been held to
be indispensable ingredient. Therefore, failure on the part of
496.09apeal
prosecution to prove demand and illegal gratification, would be fatal
and mere recovery of the amount from the appellant/accused would
not entail his conviction for the offence punishable under Section
under Section 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of PC Act.
15. In view of the discussion in foregoing paragraphs, the
prosecution having failed to prove the said charges against the
appellant, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. Consequently, this
Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order
dated 25/09/2009, passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act),
Aurangabad in Special Case No.06/2005, convicting him for the
offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is quashed and set
aside. The appellant/ accused is acquitted of the said offences. As the
appellant is on bail, he need not surrender. The bail bond stands
cancelled. Surety, if any, stands discharged. Fine amount, if
deposited, be refunded. The record and proceedings be sent back to
the concerned Court.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk
