[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Buddhabhushan Sukhadev Dabhade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:32947
{1} REVN 247 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 247 OF 2025
Buddhabhushan Sukhadev Dabhade
Age : 33 years, Occu. : Service -
Irrigation Department, Maharashtra
Government,
Address : Flat No.4, Dhamma Heights,
Nashik. ....Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Representative : Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Anti Corruption Division,
Aurangabad. .....Respondent
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Buddhabhushan Sukhadev Dabhade
(Party-In-Person) (through VC)
APP for Respondent : Mr.S.A.Gaikwad
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 26 NOVEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 01 DECEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Present revisionist, who is arraigned as an accused in Special
Case no.254 of 2025 on the file of learned Adhoc District Judge-3,
Aurangabad, is taking exception to order dated 24-06-2025 passed
below application Exhibit 4 by the said learned Judge, whereby his
application for discharge stood rejected.
{2} REVN 247 OF 2025
2. Facts in nutshell are that, complainant Rajpal Bhopalat worked
as a Clerk in the Galhati Medium Project, Shahapur, Tq.Ambad,
District Jalna, and in the same office accused worked as Assistant
Engineer. In administrative terms, accused was immediate superior
to complainant. According to complainant, in spite of he regular in
the work, accused used to question him for not coming to the office
and not doing work and even threatened to suspend him. Further
according to complainant, accused demanded Rs.5,000/- every
month if at all complainant wants to save his job. Complainant, out
of fear, transferred amount on PhonePe number of accused time to
time. Once complainant pay amount to accused in cash. On
15-12-2022, accused issued show cause notice to complainant
alleging negligence in Government duty and further asked
complainant to pay Rs.9,000/- to withdraw the notice. On
12-01-2023, complainant transferred Rs.4,000/- via PhonePe to the
account of accused, but thereafter, as complainant was not willing to
pay bribe, he lodged report with ACB authorities, who carried out
investigation, planned and executed trap and arrested accused and
on completion of investigation, he was chargesheeted.
3. Accused moved application exh.4 for discharge before learned
{3} REVN 247 OF 2025
trial Court, but the same was rejected and in consequence thereto,
present revision has been preferred praying for discharge.
4. Before this court, accused has appeared and put up his case in
the capacity as party-in-person and has also placed on record
voluminous written submissions, citations as well as reply to the say
of learned APP. He being party-in-person, he was patiently heard to
his satisfaction.
5. Heard. The sum and substance of his argument, which was
comprehended by this Court could be summarized as under :
Initially, revisionist apprised about himself and that he is
working as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department,
Maharashtra Government and belongs to scheduled caste category.
Alleging false implication, he would submit that, there is no material
or case against him so as to proceed for trial. According to him very
essence of demand, which is sine qua non, is patently missing in the
entire chargesheet. According to him, aspect of demand is also
missing from the demand verification, which is at page 51 to 53.
According to him, on the contrary, the material therein reflects some
private loan transaction and not demand of illegal gratification or
{4} REVN 247 OF 2025
bribe. On account of absence of demand and its essential ingredients
for attracting offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, he sought reliance on various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court
as well as of this Court and further according to him, in this case
mens rea was also patently missing.
6. He next submitted that accused had no work with the
petitioner or any pending work with him and therefore, there is no
question of putting up any demand. According to him, accused was
irregular in his work and he availed too many leaves, which was
affecting official work and therefore, merely show cause notice was
issued and the same was in official capacity. According to him, even
otherwise, disciplinary action taking authority for the category of
class of post held by complainant was Superintending Engineer and
not applicant, who was merely Assistant Engineer and therefore,
there is no question of putting up any demand of bribe on account
issuing notice. Thus, according to him, when there was no official
work, there is no question of putting up demand.
7. Next he would question grant of sanction as according to him,
here sanctioning authority had not applied its mind to the material
{5} REVN 247 OF 2025
before according sanction. He questions very authority and power of
sanctioning authority to grant sanction, as according to him, he being
appointed by Chief Engineer, CADA, in view of Government
Resolution (GR) dated 12-02-2013, sanction to prosecute must be
granted by Executive Director, however, here Under Secretary, Water
Resources Department, has accorded sanction, even when not
competent. He tried to invite attention of this court to the said GR as
well as circular dated 30-05-2022. Further according to him, in view
of various Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court,
sanctioning authority has to apply its mind, but here there was no
indication of independent application of mind.
Therefore, he referred to various rulings of Hon'ble Apex Court
including the case of Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 2015 SC
3060 as well as decision of this Court in the case of Sunil Achyutrao
Thete v. State of Maharashtra dated 20-10-2023.
8. It is his further submission that, here, there is an attempt to
thrust tainted currency in his pocket and there was no acceptance.
According to him, there are no traces of anthracene powder to his
hands, so as to accept prosecution case about acceptance.
{6} REVN 247 OF 2025
9. It is also his submission that complaint is full of contradictions
as numerous dates for registering complaint are reflected in the
chargesheet i.e. in PCR, MCR, thereby raising issue of very credibility
of complaint.
10. He pointed out that, here, there was deliberate attempt to
apprehend petitioner by drawing plan and it is evident from the very
act of investigating machinery arranging panchas 15 days prior to the
apprehension. Thus, according to him, there is violation of fairness
expected from investigating machinery and trap itself is tainted one.
11. Revisionist took this Court through the extract of conversations
between him and complainant and would submit that it is apparent
therefrom that whatever reference regarding money is emerging
therein, it was towards earlier credits and dues and it does not
pertain to any demand or bribe. but according to him, such crucial
aspect has not been appreciated by learned trial court while deciding
his discharge application.
12. Lastly, he submitted that complainant had personal grudge for
issuing office memorandum and show cause notice and therefore,
with ill intention, false and fabricated story is narrated about demand
{7} REVN 247 OF 2025
of illegal gratification and further trap was orchestrated with
malafied intention and even investigation machinery was not fair and
was rather biased.
He also placed reliance on the following rulings :
(i) B. Jayaraj v. Stae of Andhra Pradesh,(2014) 13 SCC 55.
(ii) Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admin), (1979) 4 SCC 725.
(iii) Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), (2023( 18 SCC
251.
13. In answer to above, learned APP would point out that, accused
being a public servant, had allegedly demanded illegal gratification
from complaint, who was his subordinate. It is pointed out that for
refraining from taking action for remaining absent for longer time,
bribe was demanded from complainant. That, said bribe was
demanded every month. That, complainant had ultimately
approached ACB authorities and had given complaint, which was
duly noted and thereafter, it is pointed out that Investigating Officer
arranged panchas, introduced them to complainant and necessary
instructions were issued. He pointed out that investigating
machinery had initially got demand verification done and only on
getting convinced that there was demand, trap was planned. Learned
{8} REVN 247 OF 2025
APP pointed out that, voice sample of accused was taken, its
panchanama was drawn and transcript of the conversation between
complaint and accused was also drawn. That, Investigating Officer
has in presence of independent panchas, drawn various panchanamas
like demand verification panchanama, voice sample panchanama,
spot panchanama etc. and same are part of investigation papers. He
pointed out that, conversation text is also part of chargesheet and it
is supported by certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act. He further pointed out that, after gathering sufficient evidence,
due sanction has been obtained from Government. Even he added
that, it is not open for accused to question the validity at this stage as
it is a matter to be raised at the time of trial. He lastly submitted that,
there being sufficient and strong evidence, learned trial Court rightly
rejected the application and he urges for similar treatment at the
hands of this Court to the present proceedings.
He placed reliance on the following rulings :
(i) Padmakar Narhar Deshpande v. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another, 2024 (3) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 746.
(ii) State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance
and Anti Corruption Chennai, City-I Department v.
G.Easwaran, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 356.
(iii) The Karnataka Lokayuktha Police v. Lakshman Rao Peshve,
{9} REVN 247 OF 2025
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 941.
(iv) Padmakar Narhar Deshpande v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, Anti-corruption Branch, Pune and Another, 2024
All MR (Cri) 2684.
14. Here, present revision is an off-shoot of order of rejection of
discharge application by revision petitioner, who invoked Section 250
of B.N.S.S. Act,2023 (old Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.).
Before testing the merits of the arguments and the
sustainability of the impugned order, it would be proper to give brief
account of the settled legal position to be borne in mind while
exercising powers for considering discharge application under
Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.
It is fairly settled position that, at such stage, Court dealing
with such application is merely expected to determine existence of
prima facie material for proceeding to frame charge and make
accused persons face trial. Material gathered during investigation is
expected to be sifted with limited purpose to find out whether there
are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused. Neither in-depth
analysis nor meticulous analysis of evidence is expected at such
stage. Thus, the only duty of Court is to ascertain whether there is
prima facie material suggesting existence of essential ingredients for
{10} REVN 247 OF 2025
the offences, which are alleged to be committed.
Above position has been time and again reiterated since the
cases of State of Bihar v/s Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of
India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another (1979) 3 SCC 4 , and a
decade back in the cases of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
and another (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Tamil Nadu (By Inspector of
Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) v. N.Suresh Rajan and Others.
(2014) 11 SCC 709; Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency
(2019) 7 SCC 148; and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651.
15. Perused the chargesheet. Complainant seems to be working as
Clerk whereas accused was officiating as Assistant Engineer. The gist
of the complaint received by ACB authorities from complainant, in
translated form, is as under :
"Complaint
Date: 13/01/2023
I, Rajpal Suppadasing Bhopalat, age 30 years, occupation service, Office
Clerk, Gallhati Medium Project, Shahapur Branch, Irrigation Department, Tq.
Ambad, Dist. Jalna, Mobile No. 7507938573.
Do hereby personally appear and lodge the following complaint: On
12/01/2023, I had submitted a complaint at the Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Aurangabad regarding the demand of bribe being made from me. The details are as
under: I have been working as Office Clerk since April 2022 at Gallhati Medium
Project, Shahapur Branch, Irrigation Department, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. Mr.
Buddhbhushan Sukhdev Dabhade, Assistant Engineer, Gallhati Medium Project,
{11} REVN 247 OF 2025
Shahapur Branch, Irrigation Department, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna is posted in my
office and I work under his control. Even though I attend office regularly and no
work is pending on my part, Dabhade Saheb used to tell me, "You do not come to
office on time and you do not do any work. I will get you suspended. If you want to
save your job, you will have to pay me Rs. 5,000 every month." Being my superior
and fearing that he might harm my service, I agreed and, as and when he
demanded, transferred money several times from my PhonePe number 7507938573
to his mobile/PhonePe number 9370159011 and also gave cash once. Despite
paying him money from time to time as demanded, on 15/12/2022 he issued me
an office notice for "negligence in government duty" and "improvement in conduct
while performing government duty". Thereafter, Dabhade Saheb personally and
over phone told me, "If you want this notice withdrawn, you will have to pay me
Rs.9,000." He kept pressing me for the amount. I told him I would pay after my
salary was credited. On 11/01/2023 my salary was credited, so he again pressed
me and asked me to send the money through PhonePe. Accordingly, on 12/01/2023
at 10:39 a.m., I transferred Rs.4,000 from my PhonePe to his PhonePe number
9370159011. Even after that, Dabhade Saheb kept pressing me for the remaining
Rs. 5000/- I told him. I will come and meet you tomorrow morning and give it to
you.
I have no desire to pay any bribe to Mr. Dabhade, nor do I have any enmity
or any monetary transaction or borrowing/lending with him. Today, 13/01/2023,
in the morning I am going to meet Mr. Dabhade. In connection with the remaining
Rs.5,000 out of the Rs.9,000 demanded by him for withdrawing the notice issued
to me and for not taking any action against me, I will go to the place indicated by
him and hold talks. If Mr. Dabhade himself or through anyone else demands and
accepts the remaining Rs.5,000 from me, please take legal action against him. I am
also submitting screenshots of the amounts transferred earlier through my PhonePe
and a photocopy of the notice issued to me. After I lodged the above complaint, I
put my signature on it.
In connection with verification of my complaint, Police Inspector Shri
Sandeep Rajput called two government panch witnesses on 11/01/2023 at the
Anti-Corruption Bureau office, introduced them to me and informed that their
names are: 1) Shri Ashok Radhakisan Harne, age 57 years, occupation service,
Junior Assistant, Animal Husbandry Department, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 2)
Shri Ganesh Fakirchand Darade, age 35 years, occupation service, Peon, Animal
Husbandry Department, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. I narrated my complaint orally
to the panchas. Thereafter, Police Inspector - Shri Rajput gave the typed complaint
to the panchas to read. After the panchas read it, Police Inspector - Shri Rajput and
the panchas put their signatures on the complaint. Since I am going to meet
Dabhade Saheb on 13/01/2023, Police Inspector - Shri. Rajput gave confidentiality
instructions to me, the panchas and the trap team and directed us to remain
present at the Anti-Corruption Bureau office on the morning of 13/01/2023, and
thereafter permitted us to leave.
Thereafter, on 13/01/2023 at around 08:15 a.m., I received a call from
Shri Dabhade. We spoke and he told me, "I am at home, come quickly with the
money." I told him I would reach in a short while. I immediately informed Police
Inspector - Shri Rajput about this and reached the Anti-Corruption Bureau office.
Police Inspector - Rajput, the panchas and the trap team were present there. Since
Shri Dabhade's house is near Itkheda Chowk, Paithan Road, I proceeded on my
motorcycle and the trap team followed in their vehicles. We stopped a little before
Kanchanwadi, near Itkheda Chowk. As per instructions, a new memory card was
inserted in the voice recorder, it was switched on and placed in the left pocket of
my shirt. I took Panch No. 1 Shri Harne with me on my motorcycle, went below
Dabhade's building, informed him that I had arrived, and he came downstairs. We
{12} REVN 247 OF 2025
met, discussed work-related matters, and in the presence of the panch he
demanded and agreed to accept the bribe amount of Rs.5,000. Thereafter, I
returned to the place where the trap team was waiting, the voice recorder was
switched off, and we all proceeded to the Anti-Corruption Bureau office,
Aurangabad. I narrated the entire sequence to Police Inspector - Rajput. Police
Inspector - Rajput and the panchas listened to the conversation recorded in the
voice recorder and were also ensure that Shri Dabhade had demanded Rs.5,000.
Thereafter, for the purpose of giving the bribe, I produced ten currency notes of
Rs.500 denomination, totalling Rs.5,000. A demonstration of the properties of
anthranilic (anthracene) powder was given to me and the panchas. The notes
produced by me were applied with anthracene powder and kept in the front right
pocket of my pant. Thereafter, Police Inspector - Shri Rajput gave detailed
instructions to me, the trap team and both panchas regarding the trap operation.
After the operation was planned, I again contacted Shri Dabhade. He told me, "Wait
on the road going towards Nagar Naka from Baba Petrol Pump Chowk; I will come
there shortly and we will meet there." Accordingly, I and Panch No. 1 Shri Harne
proceeded on my motorcycle, and the trap team followed. We stopped at a safe spot
before Baba Petrol Pump Chowk. As per instructions, Police Constable Gusinge
inserted a new memory card in the voice recorder, switched it on and placed it in
the left pocket of my shirt. As directed by Police Inspector - Shri Rajput, I took
Panch No. 1 Shri Harne with me and reached the road going towards Nagar Naka
from Baba Petrol Pump Chowk. Behind us, Police Inspector - Shri Rajput, the trap
team and Panch No. 2 Shri Darade took position in such a manner that no one
would suspect. After a short while, Shri Dabhade arrived there. After some
discussion, he personally accepted the bribe amount of Rs.5,000 from me with his
left hand and kept it in the left rear pocket of his pant. Immediately thereafter, at
about 12:32 hrs, I gave the pre-arranged signal, upon which Police Inspector - Shri
Rajput along with the trap team and Panch No. 2 Shri Darade reached the spot.
Police Inspector - Shri Rajput asked Shri Dabhade his name and address, to which
he replied: Buddhabhushan Sukhdev Dabhade, age about 31 years, Assistant
Engineer, Gallhati Medium Project, Shahapur Branch, Irrigation Department, Tq.
Ambad, Dist. Jalna, resident of Flat No. 200, Amrut Sai Gold Star, Golwadi,
Aurangabad. The bribe amount of Rs.5,000 accepted by Shri Dabhade was seized in
the presence of panchas, and the serial numbers and description of the said notes
exactly matched the notes I had produced.
Thus, on 13/01/2023 during the demand verification, Shri Buddhabhushan
Sukhdev Dabhade demanded Rs.5,000 as bribe from me in the presence of panchas
for withdrawing the notice issued to me and for not taking any action against me.
As demanded, on 13/01/2023 at about 12:32 hrs, on the road going towards Nagar
Naka from Baba Petrol Pump Chowk, Aurangabad, Shri Dabhade personally
accepted the bribe amount of Rs.5,000 from me in the presence of panchas.
Therefore, I lodge this complaint against him for legal action."
(As translated by Sr. Translator, High Court, Aurangabad)
16. It seems that after lodgment of complaint, ACB authorities
swung into action, summoned panchas, introduced them to
complainant and panchas verified the complaint and thereafter, both
{13} REVN 247 OF 2025
complainant as well as pancha were made to go together for
verification of demand. Conversation between complainant and
accused was got recorded, its transcript as well as panchanama was
drawn and thereafter, trap was laid on 13-01-2023 and was said to
be successful at 12:32 p.m. i.e. when accused was apprehended in
the vicinity of Baba Petrol Pump, Aurangabad i.e. after raising
demand and accepting the same.
17. The principal grounds on which discharge is sought are that,
there is false implication, there was no demand, due to grudge for
issuing show cause notice for remaining absent and not doing work,
complaint has been lodged with ulterior motive. That, there are
contradictions and variances as regards to date of complaint and
that, there is invalid sanction.
Here, on going through the chargesheet, this Court has noticed
that after receipt of complaint, ACB authorities has summoned
panchas. In presence of panchas, demand verification is shown to be
done, its panchanama is on record. Conversation and transcript of
the same are also part of chargesheet. This Court has noticed
availability of even certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act. Final trap panchanama is also drawn and therefore,
{14} REVN 247 OF 2025
prima facie there is sufficient material to proceed against revisionist.
18. As rightly pointed out by learned APP, the aspect of validity of
sanction, ground of no scientific evidence, and aspect of actual
demand towards earlier dues, are to be dealt and decided at the time
of trial. Accused will have opportunity to put up his defence.
19. At this juncture, this Court has sifted the chargesheet with
limited purpose to ascertain whether there is sufficiency of material
to make revisionist face trial and this Court has found prima facie
material to make revisionist face trial. Numerous citations of Hon'ble
Apex Court and this Court are tried to be taken recourse to, but the
same cannot be appreciated at this stage, more particularly, when
there is material raising grave suspicion regarding occurrence of
alleged offence. Consequently, there being no merits in the revision,
the same is required to be dismissed. Hence, following order :
ORDER
Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
