[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Mohan Nagnathrao Komatwar And Anr on 1 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:32938
ALS-81-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 81 OF 2020
The State of Maharashtra, through
Anti Corruption Bureau, Beed ...Applicant
Versus
1. Mohan Nagnathrao Komatwar,
Age 60 years, Occu. Service as
ASI, Police Station Wadwani,
Tq. Wadwani, Dist. Beed.
2. Parayya @ Parmeshwar Girmalayya,
Hiremath, Age Adult, R/o Wadwani,
Tq. Wadwani, Dist. Beed ...Respondents
.....
• Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for the Applicant/State
• Mr. C. A. Shingare, Advocate for the Respondents
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 28, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 01, 2025
ORDER :
1. As State is keen in filing appeal against judgment and order
dated 20.12.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Majalgaon in Special
Case No. 06/2012, acquitting the accused respondent herein from charge
under section 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
instant leave application has been pressed into service.
2. Learned APP pointed out that ACB authorities has received
complaint from PW1 Balasaheb Maske that to avoid initiating chapter
PAGE 1 OF 7
ALS-81-2020.odt
proceedings against him, accused who worked as police officer in police
station Wadwani, demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/- and on negotiations,
agreed to accept Rs. 2,000/-. That, on receipt of complaint to that extent,
ACB authorities summoned panchas, introduced them to complainant who
narrated about demand made and thereafter, both complainant and panch
made to go together for verification of demand. Demand was got recorded
in voice recorder and after getting it confirmed that there was demand of
bribe, trap was planned and laid. Learned APP pointed out that after tainted
currency were handed over to the complainant to be paid on demand,
complainant and panch went to the accused. That, there was demand
followed by handing over the currency as directed by accused no. 1 to
accused no. 2 who acted on behalf and at the behest of accused no. 1. That,
after receipt of signal, raiding party apprehended accused persons.
3. He further submitted that sanction was obtained and even
learned trial Court held sanction to be valid, however, according to him,
learned trial Court, on the basis of minor contradictions and in view of
criminal cases against complainant, disbelieved his testimony by holding to
be doubtful. That, in fact, there was demand, its verification and laying of
final trap, which was successful. However, learned trial Court has acquitted
both the accused and, therefore, according to him, as there is good case on
merit, he prays to accord leave.
PAGE 2 OF 7
ALS-81-2020.odt
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would point out
that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges and prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt. He pointed out that, complainant himself
did not support prosecution. Testimony of PW1 complainant and PW2
shadow panch are not consistent. That, panch in cross has admitted that he
did no hear the conversation between complainant and accused. He pointed
out that witness speak about unknown person accepting bribe and no
acceptance by accused. That, as there is neither demand nor acceptance was
proved, he supports the judgment and order of acquittal and prays for refuse
to leave for want of merit.
5. Heard. Perused the record. It seems that PW1 is complainant;
PW2 is shadow panch; PW3 is sanctioning authority; PW4 is investigating
officer.
PW1 in the initial part of his testimony has deposed about
dispute between him and Vinayak Muley and Ramnath Muley and police
visiting their field and asked his mother to send complainant to police
station. He further deposed that on 04.07.2012 he received a phone call
from mobile of one Londhe and person from other side gave his name as
Komatwar Police and informed about complaint being received against him
in police station and asked him to visit immediately but complainant told
him that he would come tomorrow and accordingly, on 05.07.2012 he
PAGE 3 OF 7
ALS-81-2020.odt
visited the police station. There he claims that, he met accused who told him
about complaint received against him, father and brothers and for not to
take preventive action, there was demand of Rs. 5,000/-. When he conveyed
his inability being farmer, he allegedly asked to bring Rs. 2,000/- and,
therefore, as he was not willing, he approached ACB and narrated the
complaint.
He also testified about panchas being called, introduced to
complainant and panchas reading his complaint and causing signature over
it. However, thereafter he deposed that he and panch as well as staff went to
Wadwani for verification and thereafter he and panch no. 1 approached
Komatwar and while verification of recording was done, at that time, voice
recorder was kept in his shirt pocket and accused approaching him and
telling him that he was having work and asked him to come later and,
therefore, complainant and panch went back.
Therefore, from above material, it is evident that during first
visit of verification there is no demand.
6. He further deposed that from his mobile he again made call to
accused who again told him to come after 10 minutes and thereafter, he and
panch went to the accused, who was sitting in the hotel in front of police
station and there accused allegedly asked him to give Rs.2,000/- and
complainant told him that he does not have such amount and that, he would
PAGE 4 OF 7
ALS-81-2020.odt
arrange after some time and thereafter, he and panch came and
investigating officer took the voice recorder and told panch and complainant
to stand near the vehicle and investigating officer alone heard recording and
investigating officer himself took out currencies from pocket of this witness,
applied powder and handed it down to complainant with instructions to pay
on demand. Thereafter, he again made phone call to accused who asked him
to come after 10 minutes in hotel and after reaching there, accused
allegedly asked him whether he brought the money and after witness
answered in affirmative, he again asked how much amount is about, he
answered about bringing Rs.2,000/- and further accused is saying to hand it
over and he hand over to accused and relayed signal.
Above is not at all story of prosecution. As according to
prosecution, accused after raising demand directed amount to be paid to
accused no. 2. However, complainant has given a very different version.
Therefore, learned APP has on permission of Court cross-examined his own
witness and in cross, at the hands of learned APP, he has virtually admitted
every suggestion.
But in cross at the hands of learned defense counsel, he is
unable to state the date on which he went to ACB. He is also unable to
narrate and reproduce the mobile number of accused over which there was
said to be conversation. In cross on behalf of accused no. 2, he admitted
that he is not acquainted with accused no. 2.
PAGE 5 OF 7
ALS-81-2020.odt
7. Another witness is PW2 Kamlesh Kulkarni. According to him,
after visiting ACB and after being introduced to complainant, he
accompanied the complainant as per instructions of investigating officer to
met the public servant and when they went and approached accused, he
told that he was busy in the work and to wait for some time. Later on,
according to him, investigating officer asked them to make phone call to
accused and complainant accordingly made phone call and he told them to
come there. On reaching police station, they went to take tea and there,
according to him, public servant told to bring his father along with
Rs.2,000/- and on failure, chapter proceedings would be initiated.
In paragraph 4 regarding main trap he deposed that, when they
went to the hotel, at that time public servant called one unknown person
and accused said unknown person to verify the amount. Therefore, his
evidence is not consistent with that of complainant. Complainant has not
stated about unknown person being called. Again, while under cross,
shadow panch has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the
conversation which took place between complainant and accused previous
to 09.07.2012.
Therefore, with above quality of evidence, witnesses PW1 and 2
are not consistent
8. Investigating officer PW 4 in his chief narrated entire events
PAGE 6 OF 7
ALS-81-2020.odt
since receipt of complaint but while under cross, he is unable to state how
portion mark 'A' and 'B' is appearing in complaint. He admitted that there
are mistakes in the panchnama exhibit 48 but in spite of it, the same bears
signatures of panchas as well as himself. According to him, mistakes are
committed by employee Misal but he is unsure as to whether said mistakes
were rectified or not. He is unable to state time of visit of complainant to the
office, time of visit of panchas to the office. He admitted that notes of
conversation were not drawn.
9. Therefore, here, complainant has turned hostile and not
supported prosecution case. Though PW2 speaks about demand and its
verification, he has admitted that he was not party to the conversation
between complainant and accused. Moreover, PW2 has stated about money
being accepted by unknown person and complainant also admitted about
not being acquainted with said unknown person. Therefore, with such
quality of evidence on record, though there is valid sanction, no fruitful
purpose would be served by granting leave and, therefore, I proceed to pass
following order:
ORDER
A. Leave stands refused.
B. Application for leave to file appeal by State is rejected.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 7 OF 7
