[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Baliram Shriram Sapkale And Another on 8 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:34047
CriAppeal-577-2015
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Baliram Shriram Sapkale,
Age 50 years, R/o Room No. 13,
New Police Line, Near S.T. Stand,
Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon.
2. Ganpat Daulat Mahire,
Age 47 years, R/o Room No. 10,
Old Police Line, Chalisgaon,
District Jalgaon. ... Respondents
[Orig. Accused]
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2137 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2015
1. Baliram Shriram Sapkale
Age 62 years, Occ. Pensioner,
R/o Avhane Shivar,
Taluka and District Jalgaon.
2. Ganpat Daulat Mahire,
Age 58 years, Pensioner,
Both r/o Juni Police Vasahat,
Chalisgaon, Taluka Chalisgaon,
District Jalgaon. ... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
CriAppeal-577-2015
-2-
.....
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for the Appellant State/Respondent in
Criminal Application No. 2137 of 2025
Mr. M. A. Tandale, Advocate for the Respondents in
Appeal/Applicants in Criminal Application No. 2137 of 2025
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 04.12.2025
Pronounced on : 08.12.2025
JUDGMENT :
1. In this appeal, State takes exception to the judgment and order
dated 18.03.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalgaon in Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 15 of 2012, thereby acquitting
the respondents herein from charges under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d)
r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [ for short, "PC
Act"].
2. In nutshell, PW1 Sandip Parekh, while was proceeding in his
car on 31.03.2012 to Verul, his vehicle was given dash by a truck and
therefore he approached Chalisgaon Police Station to lodge report
and accordingly registered FIR. To seek compensation and damages
for the vehicle, as he was in need of copy of FIR and spot
panchanama, he had approached Chalisgaon Police Station on
CriAppeal-577-2015
01.04.2012 for obtaining above documents. At that time. police
personnel namely Baliram Sapkale allegedly demanded bribe of
Rs.6000/- and as PW1 was not willing to pay bribe, he lodged
complaint with ACB authorities, who planned and executed trap.
After investigation, chargesheet was filed and both accused were tried
for above offences, however, on analysis of the evidence, learned trial
court acquitted both the accused from above charge.
Hence instant appeal.
3. Learned APP pointed out that in trial court, case of prosecution
was proved beyond reasonable doubt i.e. by adducing cogent, reliable
and consistent testimony of prosecution witnesses, more particularly
of PW1 and PW2, who had narrated about both, demand as well as
acceptance. He emphasized that, initially only demand was raised by
accused Sapkale with PW1 and therefore prompt report was lodged.
That, Investigating Officer, by summoning pancha, had introduced
both i.e. complainant as well as shadow pancha. They were given
necessary instructions and shadow pancha had signed complaint. He
further pointed out that, prior to laying trap, exercise of pre-trap
verification was undertaken during which complainant and shadow
pancha were made to carry voice recorded. That, prior to it, voice
CriAppeal-577-2015
samples of both, complainant as well as shadow pancha were
recorded by drawing panchanama. That, when complainant and
shadow pancha together went to the accused, again there was
demand and therefore, after confirming above, further trap was
planned by drawing panchanama. He pointed out that, both witnesses
unanimously speak about demand being made by accused no.1 and
further directing payment to be made to accused no.2, who accepted
the same. That, there are anthracene traces of acceptance. Thus,
according to him, both, demand as well as acceptance have been
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
4. He also pointed out that the trial court had held sanction to be
valid and therefore, with such quality of evidence, it is his submission
that, case of prosecution was proved and therefore, conviction ought
to have been recorded. However, according to him, in stead, by giving
undue importance to some minor inconsistency with regard to alleged
stamp paper executed by complainant, and by taking reference to
some persons to be also present, of whose, reference has come in the
evidence of PW3, benefit of doubt has been extended. That, when
there was clear reference about demand by quoting figure "three", it
ought to have been considered to be with context to bribe and
nothing beyond it. But different meaning has been attributed by trial
CriAppeal-577-2015
court by raising doubt, saying that it does not pertain to bribe. For all
above reasons, learned APP prays to allow the appeal by setting the
impugned order under challenge.
5. Learned counsel for the accused would submit that, here,
prosecution has failed to prove both, demand as well as acceptance.
According to him, witnesses are not consistent. That, demand is said
to be by accused no.1, but acceptance is shown to be at the instance
of accused no.2 and learned counsel would strenuously submit that in
fact, currency was found on the table and there is admission to this
extent not only by shadow pancha but also the Investigating Officer,
and as such it is his submission that, there is neither demand nor
acceptance, and therefore he justifies extension of benefit of doubt to
the accused and prays to dismiss the appeal.
6. In the light nature of charge, evidence of PW1 complainant and
PW2 Shadow pancha is crucial. Settled position is that, complainant
being interested party, it is always desirable to see whether there is
corroboration to his testimony from independent corner i.e. shadow
pancha. Here, learned trial court has, as pointed out, held sanction to
be valid and therefore it is only to be seen whether demand and
acceptance is proved.
CriAppeal-577-2015
7. On re-appreciation of entire evidence of PW1 Sandip, it is
emerging that he, in his evidence at Exhibit 10, deposed about
approaching Chalisgaon Police Station for issuance of copies of FIR
and panchanama on 01.04.2012. According to him, at that time,
accused Baliram Sapkale demanded Rs.6,000/- for issuing said
documents. As pointed out, complaint is not lodged promptly, rather
it is after three to four days thereafter, i.e. on 04.04.2012 and that
too, only against accused Sapkale. Then, he deposed about ACB
authorities arranging pancha no.1 (PW2) and making them go for
verification of demand by carrying voice recorder, and accordingly
they both going to Chalisgaon Police Station and on learning that
accused was at police ground, they both went there and claim to have
approached accused. This witness states that he had discussion about
documents with the accused but at that time accused no.2 Mahire had
demanded Rs.3000/- from him at that instance of accused Sapkale.
Then he deposed about panchanama of conversation being draw by
ACB officer and then he deposed about currency taken from him for
application of anthracene powder and necessary instructions being
given to him and shadow pancha regarding handing over tainted
currency on demand and to rely signal by taking out handkerchief.
CriAppeal-577-2015
In para 11 of examination-in-chief, he deposed about he
himself, his friend Dharmendra Patil, PW2 Ganpat Baviskar along
with one constable proceeding towards police ground and raiding
party keeping themselves away at some distance. Regarding the
events at police ground, he again stated that accused were sitting in
the police chowki which was in a corner of the police ground and
when they entered the police chowki, according to this witness,
accused no.1 gave signal to accused no.2 and accused no.2 demanded
bribe amount from him and he accordingly handed over the bribe
amount to accused no.2, who accepted it and kept it on table and
thereafter this witness relayed signal followed by further procedure.
While under cross, he has admitted that he has not set up any
claim for damage of his car with insurance company. He also
admitted that the number of the truck involved in the accident was
also not supplied in the complaint as well as panchanama. He also
admitted that at the time of lodging complaint, he did not hand over
copy of insurance policy to the police. He answered that on
04.04.2012, during visit to ACB office, Dharmendra Patil and one Sk.
Rauf also had accompanied him. He admitted that, at the time of
verification of demand, he had made phone call to Sk. Rauf and made
CriAppeal-577-2015
him talk to accused and at that time accused Sapkale had told him to
bring stamp paper of Rs.50/-. He admitted that, he was asked by
accused to bring stamp paper and he had accordingly left the police
station saying that he would bring it. However, in further cross, he
admitted that at the time of pre-trap panchanama, he had not
reported to ACB officer about accused asking him to bring stamp
paper. In further cross, he answered that at the time of trap, accused
no.1 was sitting on the bench while he and Dharmendra Patil were
sitting on the chairs. He admitted that, Sapkale as well as Mahire had
both left the room and returned after some time and that time,
Mahire had obtained his signature on the stamp paper, but he is
unable to state its contents. He answered that all the while
Dharmendra Patil was present with him, but ACB officer did not ask
anything to him. In para 19 of the cross he answered that, he had
lifted the file kept on the table and had showed the bribe amount kept
below it to the ACB officer. He denied the suggestion that, while
leaving the room for giving signal to the raiding party, he had shook
hands with accused Mahire and further answered that ACB authorities
did not examine the table on which bribe amount was kept. Rest is all
denial.
CriAppeal-577-2015
8. PW2 Ganesh, who acted as shadow pancha, is examined at
Exhibit 18 and in initial testimony, he narrated all events with took
place at ACB office during his visit on 04.04.2012 and 05.04.2012,
being introduced to complainant and accompanying him for
verification to Police Station Chalisgaon. In para 3 of the
examination-in-chief, he deposed that after entering the police station
and on making inquiries about the accused persons, they learnt that
both accused were on the police ground and hence they went towards
the police chowki on the ground. According to him, discussion took
place between de facto complainant and accused persons about the
documents of accident. According to him, at that time, accused
Mahire asked complainant to bring Rs.3,000/-. They returned and
panchanama of the conversation which was recorded in the voice
recorded (Exhibit 21) was drawn by the Investigating Officer.
Then he deposed about the procedure of application of
anthracene powder and instructions given by the Investigating Officer
and pre-trap panchanama Exhibit 22 being drawn and thereafter, he
and complainant again walking towards the chowki. According to
him, both accused were standing in civil dress. Again he stated that
talks took place between de facto complainant and both the accused
CriAppeal-577-2015
about the accident papers and thereafter accused Sapkale pointed
towards accused Mahire and directed complainant to give bribe
amount to accused Mahire, and accordingly complainant took it out
and gave it to accused Mahire who accepted it and thereafter kept it
on the table followed by rely of signal and raiding party coming and
apprehending accused.
Above witness in cross admitted that conversation between de
facto complainant and accused had taken place outside the police
chowki, i.e. on the ground. He admitted that during conversation
between de facto complainant and the accused persons, complainant
had referred about Sk. Rauf, but he denied remembering whether any
phone call was made to Sk.Rauf by complainant and he was made to
talk with accused persons. He admitted that during such conversation,
accused Mahire had asked de facto complainant to bring stamp paper.
He fairly admitted that at that time, accused Sapkale had not made
any demand from de facto complainant. He also admitted that, he
and de facto complainant had left the spot for bringing stamp paper.
According to him, at the time of trap, Dharmendra Patil had not come
in the police station. He also admitted that, de facto complainant
handed over stamp paper to accused Mahire who kept it on the table
and went out of the police chowki. He further candidly admitted that,
CriAppeal-577-2015
it had happened at the time of trap that when they proceeded towards
police chowki, both accused were outside the police chowki and at
that time, de facto complainant had occupied chair near the table of
accused and was sitting on it. He further admitted that, when ACB
officer asked de facto complainant as to where the bribe amount was
kept, de facto complainant told that the bribe amount was kept below
the file. Rest is all denial.
9. Therefore, on analyzing above evidence, here, it is emerging
that, according to de facto complainant, while he approached
Chalisgaon Police Station, at that time only accused Sapkale was
approached for documents and he had allegedly demanded bribe of
Rs.6000/- for issuing documents. At the time of verification of
demand, presence of accused no.2 Mahire is shown and this time, he
is shown to have put demand and not accused Sapkale. Shadow
pancha has admitted that accused Sapkale had not made any demand
of money. Therefore, here, who actually raised demand out of the two
accused at the time of main trap, is not clear. According to PW1,
during the main trap, regarding which he has deposed in para 11
that, at police chowki accused no.1 had given signal to accused no.2
and thereafter accused no.2 had demanded bribe from him.
Resultantly, there is no demand directly by accused no.1.
CriAppeal-577-2015
10. Another distinct feature that is emerging here is that, according
to PW1, when they entered police chowki at police ground, before
there was demand of documents, accused no.1 allegedly signaled to
accused no.2 and thereafter accused no.2 demanded bribe amount
from him. However, according to PW2 shadow pancha, at police
chowki, talks took place between de facto complainant and both the
accused about the accident papers and then accused no.1 Sapkale
pointed towards accused Mahire and directed de facto complainant to
give bribe amount to accused no.2. Therefore, PW1 and PW2 are
apparently not consistent.
11. Again, here, it is brought to the notice of this court by learned
counsel for accused that, amount was found on the table and not in
possession of either of the accused. Defence has put up a case of
planting. There is more probability of this happening because, pancha
has admitted that after they went to police chowki, both accused had
left police chowki to go out and had returned at later point of time.
Therefore, stand of defence has been probabilized regarding
possibility of planting.
CriAppeal-577-2015
12. As regards to demand is concerned, according to PW2, accused
no.2 allegedly merely uttered the word as "three". Unless there is
material to show that accused no.2 was acting at the behest of
accused no.1, story of prosecution cannot be accepted. Who of the
two accused was responsible for issuing documents has not been
investigated. It was necessary to investigate because initially accused
no.1 was only approached and presence of accused no.2 has been
shown directly at the time of verification and alleged acceptance.
13. To sum up, here, initially demand is attributed to only accused
Sapkale, but he has not accepted the tainted currency. Rather, during
verification and main trap, demand as well as acceptance is attributed
to accused no.2, however currency is found not in possession of
accused no.2, but it was beneath a file on a table. There is nothing to
show that alleged acceptance by accused no.2 was at the behest of
accused no.1. Consequently, it is a fit case for extension of benefit of
doubt.
14. Perused the judgment under challenge, the view taken by
learned trial court is the only possible view that could emerge even on
re-appreciation. Case not being proved beyond reasonable doubt,
CriAppeal-577-2015
there is no error on the part of trial court in extending benefit of
doubt. Hence, following order :
ORDER
I. The Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.
II. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, the pending Criminal
Application also stands disposed off.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
