[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Balu S/O. Kashinath More on 8 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:34034
-1-
ALS-205-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 205 OF 2018
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Khultabad,
Tq. Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Applicant
Versus
Balu S/o. Kashinath More,
Age : 38 years, Occu.: Gramsevak,
Gadana Borwadi, R/o. Khultabad,
Tq. Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Respondent
......
Mrs. P. V. Diggikar, APP for Applicant - State.
Mr. N. S. Ghanekar, Advocate for Respondent.
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 04 DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 08 DECEMBER 2025
ORDER :
1. Leave is sought to question the judgment and order dated
05.06.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad
in Special Case (ACB) No. 25 of 2013 acquitting the accused respondent
from charges under sections 7, 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Learned APP pointed out that, on receipt of report from PW1
that, the accused, a Gramsevak, demanded Rs.3,000/- as a bribe for
issuing Form-8 extract, ACB authorities entertained the complaint,
ALS-205-2018
followed by arranging independent panch and explaining to the
complainant and panch the procedure of trap. That, prior to main trap,
verification got done. That, after getting demand confirmed, trap was laid
and it was successfully executed. According to learned APP, both,
complainant and shadow panch, who were in each other's company, had
unanimously stated about demand during verification and its acceptance
by accused. Accused was apprehended red handed after accepting the
currency, and a detailed panchanama of the spot was said to be drawn.
That, there is transcript of conversation. Therefore, a full-proof case was
made out, but learned trial court failed to consider and appreciate the
same. As the prosecution has a good case on merits, in the light of above
panchanama, she urged to accord the leave.
3. In answer to above, supporting the judgment, learned
counsel for respondent pointed out that, prosecution had miserably failed
to bring home the charges. He pointed out that, Investigating Officer and
panch witness had admitted that the amount which was demanded and
accepted, was towards tax and not illegal gratification. He pointed out
that, even immediately after alleged apprehension, statement was given
by accused that amount demanded by him was towards the tax and not
bribe. Therefore, considering such evidence, he would submit that, trial
court was correct and justified in acquitting accused and for want of
merits, he urges to reject the application for leave.
ALS-205-2018
4. Heard. Perused papers. PW1 Sudam complainant, who
approached ACB authority for lodging complaint Exh.12. According to
him, he had approached Gramsevak for issuing certified copy of extract of
8-A and for the same, according to him, there was demand of bribe of
Rs.5,000/- and finally on negotiation, it was brought down to Rs.3,000/-.
As he was not willing to pay bribe, he approached ACB authority and
lodged complaint Exh.12. Then, he narrated about panchas summoning,
introducing them to complainant, explaining procedure and verification
panchanama got done by recording conversation in tape recorder and
thereafter complainant and shadow panch together going to the office of
accused and there again accused making demand and accepting the
amount.
While under cross, in paragraph 1, complainant has admitted
that accused has asked him to pay tax and he had paid Rs.1,000/- out of
Rs.3,500/- on 03.04.2013. In paragraph 4, he admitted that, after
demand by him to the accused to issue property extract, at that time,
accused told him, first give the arrears and then take a copy of extract.
He also admitted that, when he gave Rs.3,000/- to the accused, accused
told him that he to pay Rs.500/- more. Therefore, the above evidence of
complainant shows that he have arrears of tax and the same was
demanded by accused.
ALS-205-2018
5. PW2 Ambadas, shadow panch, is examined at Exh.22,
wherein he deposed about approaching ACB office, being introduced to
complainant, signing over complaint Exh.12 and on hearing from accused
regarding demand made for issuance of Form 8-A extract. He also
deposed about conversation between complainant and accused in a tape
recorder and its panchanama being drawn.
In paragraph 5, he narrated the events of main trap. In
Saishraddha hotel, accused arrived, the complainant ordered a tea and
accused refusing to take tea. He deposed that, complainant asked how
much amount he should pay and accused said that he had already
informed, upon which complainant replied that it was not fixed and
when the accused handed over a copy of extract of Form 8 of village
panchayat property, complainant again asked himself about the entry of
tax and thereafter took the extract and handed over the cash to the
accused. Thereafter, predetermined signal was relayed and accused was
apprehended.
This witness, while under cross in paragraph 7, admitted
that, complainant had not stated that he paid Rs.1,000/- towards tax of
his property and he also admitted that accused and complainant talked
about the tax when they met in the hotel Saishraddha and he also further
admitted that complainant conversed with the accused that he had paid
ALS-205-2018
some amount earlier. He also admitted about accused asking complainant
that Rs.3,000/- is not enough and he has to pay Rs.500/- more. He
further admitted that, accused illustrated the complainant about the
description of the property and assessment of tax and complainant
himself requested accused to reduce the amount of tax. This witness
admitted that he did not realize whether the amount paid towards tax or
a bribe. He further deposed in the court that he was handed over
panchanama for perusal prior to his evidence.
6. Therefore, from the above evidence of shadow panch an
independent witness, again it has come on record that the amount
demanded was towards tax and not towards bribe. As pointed out by
learned counsel for respondent, Investigating Officer in his evidence in
paragraph 5 admitted that he did not carry out investigation regarding
civil suit instituted by Gadana village panchayat against complainant. He
admitted that investigation revealed that no assessment was fixed to pay
property tax of the vacant plot of the complainant to village Panchayat
till recording the entry of the complainant. He answered that, he learnt
about communication exchanged between the complainant and accused
regarding ancestral property and the property tax. He also admitted
communication exchanged between both for payment of tax. In
paragraph 7, he answered that, during investigation he did not come
across whether the complainant was assessed for property tax to the tune
ALS-205-2018
of Rs.4,800/-. He admitted that, before lodgment of complaint, he was
not aware of the procedure and practice to be followed by village
panchayat to assess the property tax.
7. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, here, it is
emerging that, complainant was due towards payment of property tax
and demand was towards the same. In spite of paying Rs.3,000/-, there
was a shortfall of Rs.500/- and accused had asserted it in demand.
Therefore, in view of answers given by the witnesses in cross, here, there
is sufficient evidence to show that whatever amount was demanded and
was also accepted by accused, was towards property tax and not bribe.
Therefore, in view of admission of complainant himself, shadow panch as
well as Investigating Officer, this court does not find any illegality or
perversity in the findings and conclusion drawn by the learned trial court
for acquitting the accused.
8. No case being made out on merits to accord leave, I proceed
to pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) The leave is refused.
(ii) The application is rejected.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
