[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Bhimrao Namdeo More on 8 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:34035
-1- Cri.Appeal.70.2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2012
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Dy.S.P. ACB, Jalgaon. ... Appellant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
Bhimrao Namdeo More,
Age : 45 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. Pimpalgaon Hareshwar,
Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondent.
(Orig Accused)
......
Mr. P. P. Dawalkar, Advocate for Appellant - State.
Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Respondent.
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 03 DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 08 DECEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. In present appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and
order dated 20.06.2011 passed by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, and
Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.03 of 2008, by
which, present respondent, who was charge-sheeted and tried for offence
punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stood acquitted.
2. In nutshell, on report of PW1 Shailendra Gujar, ACB
-2- Cri.Appeal.70.2012
authorities registered complaint and investigated it, wherein it was
reported that, complainant had approached respondent police constable
for copy of panchanama on account of his vehicle meeting with and
accident, so as to enable him to claim compensation for damages from
insurance company. It is alleged that, for issuing said panchanama,
gratification to the tune of Rs.5,000/- was demanded. Rs.2,000/- were
paid initially and before remaining amount was paid, PW2 lodged report
with ACB authorities, who planned and executed trap, and after
investigation charge sheeted accused and he was made to face trial
before learned Ad-hod District Judge-1, Jalgaon. Said court appreciated
the evidence and acquitted the accused. Hence, the instant appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
3. Learned APP would point out that, there was overwhelming
evidence in support of the charge and prosecution has proved the case
beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of evidence of PW2 Shailendra
complainant and PW3 Sanjay shadow panch. That, their evidence
remained intact on material count, but the same has not been correctly
appreciated and by giving undue importance to minor contradiction, their
testimonies are disbelieved.
4. Learned APP further submitted that, after receipt of
complaint, PW4 Investigating Officer summoned the panchas, who were
-3- Cri.Appeal.70.2012
introduced to complainant and there were apprised about the nature of
the complaint and they were given necessary instructions to be followed
during trap. He pointed out that pre-trap panchanama was also drawn,
but the same also unfortunately not taken into account.
5. He further submitted that, evidence of PW2 complainant and
PW3 shadow panch find support from the Investigating Officer and
therefore case of prosecution ought to have been accepted as proved. He
also invited attention of the court to the testimony of PW1 Santosh and
would submit that, here, sanction is held to be valid, and therefore the
only result expected was of conviction, however, the same did not
happen and learned trial court acquitted the accused. According to him, it
is due to improper appreciation and non consideration of legal position
and so he urges to interfere by allowing the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for respondent accused supported the
judgment and prayed to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.
EVIDENCE IN BRIEF IN TRIAL COURT IS AS UNDER
7. PW1 sanctioning authority at Exh.15 deposed about received
papers from ACB authorities, examining the papers and according the
sanction on 05.07.2008, which he identified to be at Exh.16.
-4- Cri.Appeal.70.2012
While under cross, he admitted that he had received true
copies of the case papers along with draft sanction. He is unable to state
definitely whether he had come across documents of ownership of the
vehicle. In paragraph 4 of the cross, he admitted that, due to oversight
year of the order is wrongly written as 2007. He also admitted that,
outward number and the date were noted by clerk. He admitted that, he
did not put the date on the sanction order in his own handwriting. He
admitted using draft sanction.
8. PW2 Shailendra is the complainant and in his testimony at
Exh.25, he stated that, on 16.05.2007, his Maruti Omni van bearing
No.MH-19-Y-882 met with an accident. He went there, noticed damage
and thereafter contacted police station. According to him, at police
station, he was told that, report has to be lodged by driver personally and
therefore on next day, he took driver to the police station and contacted
accused Bhimrao More and requested him to supply copy of panchanama
in order to claim compensation. He further deposed that, accused asked
him to pay Rs.5,000/- and on indulgence by one Vishwanath Koli
Rs.2,000/- were paid and remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- were decided
to be paid later on i.e. on 19.05.2007. He claims that, on said date also,
he approached accused, who told him to pay the remaining amount,
-5- Cri.Appeal.70.2012
which was assured to be paid in a day or two day, but instead
complainant approached ACB authorities and filed report on 19.05.2017.
He further deposed about ACB authority summoning panchas,
introducing them and explaining the procedure of trap, application of
anthracene powder and instructions were given to pay on demand and
pancha was asked to watch the events. In paragraph 4, he has narrated
the events of the day of trap that on suggestion of Investigating Officer,
he initially made phone call to the accused, and after keeping the mobile
on speaker mode, he talked to accused. According to him, accused asked
whether he has brought money and suggested to come to meet him at
Ganesh STD booth by side of Varkhedi bus stand. There around 11:20
a.m., accused came on motorcycle. Once again, he claims to have
demanded panchanama, but he was told that there is requirement of
writing on a stamp paper regarding handing over custody of the vehicle
and thereafter accused allegedly put up demand of money and on
amount of Rs.3,000/- being handed over, it was duly accepted, followed
by relay of signal and apprehension of accused.
Initial cross is regarding ownership of the vehicle, wherein
he admitted that he has purchased the vehicle from one Sanjay Patil and
he was registered owner. Then he corrected and stated that he took
custody of the vehicle from Pravin Patil along with documents. He is
-6- Cri.Appeal.70.2012
unable to state the name of the insurer and admitted not approaching
insurance company. He answered that he had lodged report in the police
station regarding the accident at 8.00 am of 17.05.2007. He admitted
that one panchanama was prepared on 17.05.2007, but he is unable to
give names of panchas. Omission is brought to the extent that he had
called Vishwanath Koli, who had paid Rs.2,000/- to the accused. He
answered that, in the ACB office he had narrated the incident to Dy.S.P.
who had further dictated the same to the typist. Rest of the cross is on
the point of visit to the STD booth, its owner to be present there and both
complainant and accused having discussion there. He admitted that he
learnt that accused going to Pachora on the day of incident. Rest is all
denied.
9. PW3 Sanjay Patil is the shadow panch. He in his evidence at
Exh.28, in paragraph 2 deposed about being introduced to complainant,
who narrated that he was in need of copy of spot panchanama and that
concerned police not ready to give it and there was rather demand of
money to supply a copy of panchanama and complainant told about
Rs.2,000/- already paid and Rs.3,000/- was remaining and report being
lodged to the ACB. Regarding events of trap he stated that, he,
complainant and raiding party proceeded to Varkhadi and there Dy.S.P.
Sonar asked complainant to contact accused on mobile and he
-7- Cri.Appeal.70.2012
accordingly contacted accused and kept the mobile on speaker. He
deposed that, complainant told accused that he is arrived and he is in
need of documents and further asked where he should come to collect
the same. Upon which accused asked him to come at STD booth near
Varkhedi bus stand and thereafter they all accordingly went to Varkhadi
bus stand. Then, he stated when he and complainant went to the STD
booth, there were talks between complainant and owner of the STD
booth Tiwari. According to him, said Tiwari informed that accused has
asked them to wait and after sometime, accused came, sat on the chair
while they were standing and complainant told that he had brought the
amount and he should handover the documents to him. On demand by
accused Rs.3,000/- were handed over by complainant, which was
accepted, followed by signal given by complainant and raiding party
apprehending accused.
In cross, he has admitted that during their visit to ACB office
on 21.05.2007, he does not remember whether there was written
complaint and the same was gone through. He is unable to remember
whether complainant handed over any documents of vehicle to ACB;
whether complainant had shown any documents about his ownership of
vehicle to ACB; whether Dy.S.P. Sonar made inquiry with complainant;
whether accused was having mobile and what was his number; he is
-8- Cri.Appeal.70.2012
unable to remember whether ACB has recorded his statement. He is
unable to state whether complainant had told owner of the STD booth
Mr. Tiwari that there is requirement of execution bond. He is also unable
to remember whether Tiwari was present after arrival of the accused. He
denied about accused telling complainant regarding executing bond. He
admitted that, before his testimony, he was given a copy of panchanama
before adducing evidence.
Learned counsel for respondent would point out that the
same is not permissible and he seeks reliance on judgment of this court in
the case of Suresh S/o. Purushottam Ashtankar v. The State of
Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri.) 4243, wherein
there is again reference of judgment of this court in the case of Sharad
Namdeorao Shirbhate v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 (2)
Mh.L.J.(Cri) 1210. On visiting the above rulings, the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this court by taking two above referred rulings has clearly held
that it is not permissible to handover documentary evidence to the
witness before entering the witness box. Therefore, testimony of such
witness cannot be taken into account for above reasons.
10. PW4 is the Investigating Officer. In examination-in-chief, he
narrated the events since arrival of complainant till filing charge-sheet.
-9- Cri.Appeal.70.2012
While under cross in paragraph 10, he admitted that
complainant did not hand over him RC book or insurance policy and that
the vehicle stood in the name of Sunil Patil. He also admitted that, on
the day of accident, insurance policy of that vehicle was in the name of
Sunil Patil itself and further admitted that, only the person in whose
name insurance policy stands, he is entitled for getting compensation. He
further admitted that it was transpired during investigation that, it was
Tiwari, who had made phone call to the accused and had called him
there and said Tiwari was also present at the time of trap.
ANALYSIS
11. On re-appreciating the above evidence, it is clearly emerging
that, firstly, there is no evidence that initially after demand of Rs.5,000/-,
Rs.2,000/- were paid in presence of Vishwanth Koli and remaining
amount of Rs.3,000/- were agreed to be paid later on. In cross of
complainant, omission is brought regarding informing ACB authorities
about Vishwanath Koli paying Rs.2000/- to accused. Vishwanath Koli is
not examined by prosecution for the best reasons known to him. When it
has come from the evidence of very Investigating Officer that neither
vehicle nor insurance papers stood in the name of complainant, there is
no question of he to be entitled to receive any compensation for which
there was said to be panchanama and for issuing the same, there was
said to be demand. Therefore, very motive to seek gratification itself is
-10- Cri.Appeal.70.2012
rendered doubtful.
12. On placing evidence of PW2 complainant and PW3 shadow
panch in juxtaposition, it is noticed that, according to PW2 complainant
when at the instance of Investigating Officer, telephone call was made to
the accused on the day of trap, during such telephonic conversation itself
accused has allegedly put up demand of money. However, PW3 shadow
panch, in his testimony, has not uttered about any demand on telephone
when accused had allegedly called complainant at STD booth. Rather, it
is further coming in the evidence that, it is Tiwari, who had telephoned
accused and called him at STD booth, therefore, evidence of crucial
witness is not consistent. According to PW2, accused came on motorcycle
on Pimpalgaon road and came in the STD booth, sat on the chair and it is
complainant, who himself seems to have told accused that he has brought
the amount and that accused should handover the documents. Such
testimony of this independent witness goes to show that even prior to any
demand, complainant himself has declared that he has brought the
money. Again, PW3 shadow panch, who is considered as independent
and crucial witness, in his cross has virtually refused to answer all
suggestion by stating that he does not remember whatever events took
place and were suggested during cross. Therefore, even shadow panch
has not supported the prosecution wholeheartedly.
-11- Cri.Appeal.70.2012
13. As regards to sanction is concerned, the aspect of distinct
year of the sanction order and there being mistake therein and further
admission of sanctioning authority referring the draft sanction, creates
doubt about application of mind while according sanction.
For all above reasons, case of prosecution is surrounded by
doubts on material counts,
14. Perused the impugned judgment, the same is on appreciation
of complete substantive evidence of witnesses. The view taken by learned
trial court is the only possible view that could emerge even on re-
appreciation. No patent perversity or illegality brought to the notice, this
court refrains from granting the same. Hence, the following order is
passed :
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
