[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dilip Limbajirao Mane And Anr vs The State Of Mah on 2 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:33100
1 criapeal593.05 .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 593 OF 2005
1] Dilip s/o Limbajirao Mane,
Age; 45 years, Occ; Service,
R/o; Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist.
Osmanabad. ....(Since deceased
through his Lrs.)
1-A] Smt. Seema Dilip @ Diliprao Mane,
Age; 50 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; Umbare Galli, Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
1-B] Buddhabhushan Dilip @ Diliprao Mane,
Age; 28 years, Occ; Labour,
R/o; Umbare Galli, Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
1-C] Sau. Madhuri Pravin Bansode,
Age; 33 years, Occ; Household,
R/o; Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
1-D) Madhusudan Dilip @ Diliprao Mane,
Age; 30 years, Occ; Labour,
R/o; Umbare Galli, Osmanabad,
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.
2] Rajnikant s/o Yadav Bansode,
Age; 21 years, Occ; Student,
R/o; Osmanabad Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ...APPELLANTS
(Accused)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT
2 criapeal593.05 .doc
..........
Advocate for the Appellants : Ms. Harsha R. Lomte h/f Mr. V.D. Salunke
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. C.V.Bhadane
.........
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
Date of Reservation : 17.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants are challenging the Judgment and Order
passed by the learned Special Judge, in Special Case No. 4 of 2002,
dated 29.07.2005, wherein, the Special Judge has convicted the
appellants for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six
months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default to further Rigorous
Imprisonment for one month. They are further convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default
to further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months.
2. As per the prosecution story, the deceased appellant is
accused No. 1 in Sessions Case and was serving as Record Keeper in the
office of the Taluka Inspector of Lands Record, Usmanabad during the
period from February 1999 till February, 2002. Whereas, co-accused No.
3 criapeal593.05 .doc
2 was working as Personal Assistant of accused No. 1. It is the case of
the prosecution that accused No. 1 used to pay accused No. 2 Rs. 30/-
to 40/- per day for writing work.
PW-2 Umesh Vinayak Chavan in view of certain property
dispute between him and other persons has decided to take legal action
for protection of his share in the property. Accordingly on 12.02.2002 at
8.30 a.m. he contacted his Advocate Shri Dayanand Birajdar at
Usmanabad. The said Advocate told him that he would file a suit for
injunction simplicitor against those other persons with whom he is
having dispute. The said Advocate suggested him to collect 9 (3)-(4)
extracts of the field and Toch Map from the office of Taluka Inspector of
Lands Record, Usmanabad. (for short "T.I.L.R."). On said advise of his
Advocate on the very same day between 10.00 to 10.30 he left for the
office of T.I.L.R. Thereafter, he submitted an application before accused
No. 1 being the record keeper. The Complainant requested the accused
No. 1 to supply requisite extracts to him, however, accused No. 1 told
him that expenses of Rs. 200/- would be required to perform the said
work. One Mr. Pavan Landge, was a Clerk on the table of Copying
Section in the office of T.I.L.R., Usmanabad. Accused No. 1 asked said
Pavan to collect the application filed by the Complainant and also to
collect sum of Rs. 200/- from him towards copies demanded by him.
Accordingly, the Complainant placed said copies on the table of said
Pavan, the Copying Clerk. Said Pavan asked the Complainant to obtain
the signature of of A.A. Waghmare, being his superior officer. After
4 criapeal593.05 .doc
obtaining the signature A.A. Waghmare, the matter was placed before
Landge by making entry to that effect through the endorsement in
Marathi language. Accordingly, the Complainant brought back the
papers and handed over it to Pavan Landge, who kept the application in
a drawer and told the Complainant to come after three days to collect the
said copies. However, since the Complainant was in urgent need as the
other persons with whom he was having dispute were threatening him,
therefore, he requested said Landge to issue copies immediately. On
that, Mr. Landge asked the Complainant to pay Rs. 200/- for preparing
copies as insisted by accused No. 1. When the Complainant expressed
his inability to pay the said amount on that day, therefore Mr. Landge
asked him to bring amount on next day i.e. on 13.02.2002. Therefore,
as the Complainant was not willing to pay bribe, he approached Anti
Corruption Bureau, Office (for short "ACB"). He met Mr. G.S. Gawali, the
Deputy Superintendent of Police. (for short "DYSP"). DYSP Gawali
secured presence of two panchas and after giving instructions to each of
them being members of raiding party, they decided to lay trap on Pavan
Landge but not on the appellants. After completing all formalities the
members of the raiding party, i.e. pancha witness and other members of
trap party thereafter reached the TILR office. The Complainant along
with panch No. 1 (PW-3) Sanganbasayya Jangam, entered the office of
T.I.L.R. at 11.15 a.m.
3. Thereafter, at 11.20 a.m. the Complainant and panch No. 1
5 criapeal593.05 .doc
came together out of the T.I.L.R. office. Thereafter at 11.45 a.m. the
Complainant gave signal and accordingly police caught hold hands of
accused No. 2. Upon inquiry accused No. 2 told him that he is working
as Writer and Personal Assistant for accused No. 1. The hands of
accused No. 2 when checked under the Ultra Violate lamp, which
glittered with blue and white colour shining under the ultra violate lamp.
Thereafter panch No. 2 Suryawanshi (not examined by the prosecution)
removed the amount from the pocket of pant of accused No. 2. After
completion of necessary formalities, DYSP, Gawali asked accused No. 2
about the application submitted by the Complainant on 12.02.2002 for
getting certificate copies of the extract. Accused No. 2 told him that said
copies are in the drawer in the right side of table of accused No. 1.
Thereafter DYSP, Gawali asked pancha No. 1 as to how the incident took
place. Accordingly, pancha No. 1 informed that accused No. 1 had called
accused No. 2 and instructed to him to give copies to the Complainant
and to collect Rs. 200/- from him. Thereafter, accused No. 2 asked the
Complainant to wait outside the office. Accordingly, accused No. 2 also
came out of the office for some time and asked the Complainant whether
the amount of Rs. 200/- has been brought by him. Accused No. 2 asked
to pay said amount to him. Accused No. 2 collected that amount outside
the office at the distance of 10 feet from the main entrance gate of that
office. Thereafter, the DYSP, Gawali asked accused No. 1 regarding the
nature of work of the Complainant with him, who told him in detailed
and produced one register and also application given by the Complainant
6 criapeal593.05 .doc
to him. After recording the spot panchanama with all details the copy of
the same was handed over to both the accused and both the accused
had given their written say as per their stand. Thereafter, both the
accused were brought to Police Station Usmanabad, where DYSP Gawali
lodged First Information Report against both the accused and Crime No.
06 of 2002 came to be registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 7,12,13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, DYSP, Gawali has recorded the
statement of witnesses, collected requisite documents and on the
strength of the same he has filed charge-sheet against the accused
persons stating therein that accused No. 1 had demanded illegal
gratification from the Complainant for supplying certified copies to him
and accused No. 2 at the behest of accused No. 1 has collected that
illegal gratification and abetted accused No. 1 in the commission of the
aforesaid offences.
4. After filing of the charge-sheet, accused persons were
brought before the Court. Accordingly, charge came to be framed against
them vide (Exh. 6) for the offence punishable under Sections 7,12,13(1)
(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The
accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
5. The Special Court has recorded evidence of total four
witnesses. After hearing the learned Counsel for both sides, the learned
7 criapeal593.05 .doc
Special Court was pleased to deliver the judgment thereby convicting the
accused persons for the charged offences and sentenced them. Therefore,
the appellants have approached this Court through this appeal.
6. Heard Ms. Harsha R. Lomte h/f Mr. V.D. Salunke, the
learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. C.V.Bhadane, the learned
APP for Respondents-State at length and also perused the record.
7. Ms. Lomte, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has
submitted that offences levelled against the appellants are at all not
proved and the prosecution failed to prove the same beyond the
reasonable doubt that there was valid demand and acceptance of bribe of
Rs.200/- by the appellants. She has further submitted that actual
demand is made by Pawan Landge but he has not been made as an
accused in this Crime. However, the recovery is alleged to be shown to
have been made from accused No. 2. She further submitted that as the
prosecution has not virtually proved their case beyond reasonable doubt,
there is no question of presumption under Section 20 of the Act.
Accordingly, she further submitted that the witnesses have not
corroborated with each other and in their testimonies, there are too
many material omissions. The main issue as regards the demand and
acceptance is at all not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt. She further submitted that sanction order is not passed by
applying mind and on these grounds she prayed for allowing the appeal
8 criapeal593.05 .doc
and thereby acquitting the accused persons.
8. Per Contra, Mr. Bhadane, learned APP for respondent-State
has vehemently opposes the appeal. According to him, the prosecution
has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and as such, learned
Session Court has rightly convicted the appellants and therefore, there is
no valid ground to interfere in the judgment delivered by the Sessions
court. Therefore, Mr. Bhadane, learned APP prayed for dismissal of the
instant appeal.
9. The depositions of witnesses have been perused. PW-1 is
Vikram Khedkar, who is the Deputy Director of the Lands Record,
Aurangabad. In his deposition he has stated that he has not mentioned
in the sanction order as to which papers were actually received by him
and which papers were perused by him while according sanction. He
further stated that he has not mentioned the grounds of his satisfaction
while issuing sanction order. He has further stated that appellant No. 1
is the Record Keeper, who was entrusted with the duty to maintain the
entire record of the office. The said Record Keeper requires to maintain
register and also requires to make suitable entries relating to moving of
the record. It is also the duty of the Record Keeper to hand over the file
of any matter to the Clerk of the office, who is preparing certified copies
and by obtaining signature of that Clerk. Again he has to take entries at
the time of receiving the record in his register. He has specifically
9 criapeal593.05 .doc
admitted that it was not the duty of the accused No. 1 being the Record
Keeper to receive application for preparing certified copies or supply
certified copies of any document to any party who is demanding such
copies. Thereafter, I perused the sanction order (Exh. 15), wherein, the
said sanction order dated 09.04.2002 is clearly seen to be issued in
draft/format and virtually there is no any explanation in the said order
as to whether the officer who has issued it, has seen any record,
investigation papers etc. before issuing the said sanction order.
Moreover, there is not even a word or sentence mentioned that the
Sanctioning Officer was fully satisfied while issuing the said sanction
order. On bare perusal of the sanction order, it discloses that it was
issued in mechanical manner and no mind was applied at the time of
issuing the said order.
10. I have also perused the deposition of PW-2 i.e. the
Complainant Mr. Umesh V. Chavan. The said Complainant in
unequivocal terms has stated that Mr. Landge had asked him to bring
sum of Rs. 200/- with whom the said application was pending for
issuing certified copies. Thus there is no justification by the prosecution
why said Shri. Landge has not been made accused. The said PW-2
Complainant vide (Exh. 16) deposed that he alongwith pancha No. 1 i.e.
(PW-3) entered into TILR office at 11.00 a.m. Accused No. 1 was present
in the office at that time. He offered salute to accused No. 1 which was
responded by the latter. He asked accused No. 1 to supply documents
10 criapeal593.05 .doc
as per his application. Accused No. 1 asked him as to whether he had
brought amount. He told him that he had brought the amount.
Thereafter, accused No. 1 told him that Landge was on leave and
accused No. 2 was present in the office and accused No. 1 called accused
No. 2 and told him to give documents and to collect a sum of Rs.200/-
from him. However, this version of PW-2 -Complainant is not supported
by the shadow pancha i.e. (PW-3), who is examined vide (Exh. 119).
According to him, the Complainant went near accused No. 1 and
demanded extract from him. Accused No. 1 told him to collect extract
from Landge and at that time Landge had not attended the office (since
said Landge was on leave on that day). He and the Complainant came
out of the office and began to wait for Landge, who were standing outside
for half and hour. Thereafter, after 10 minutes, accused No. 2 came out
of the Record Room and the Complainant went near him. After having
some talk between accused No. 2 and Complainant, the Complainant
gave signal to the raiding party. Thus, the crucial aspect as regards the
demand and acceptance of the amount is at all not proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. There is also no corroboration
between PW-2 and PW-4 as regards seizure and acceptance of bribe
money. As regards the material issues in respect of demand and
sanction, the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable
doubt to arrive at a conclusion that the appellants have committed the
offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13
(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, It is not proper to
11 criapeal593.05 .doc
convict the appellants for the aforesaid offences. In view of the aforesaid
discussion it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has virtually
failed to prove their case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Thus the prosecution having failed to prove the charges
under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, the appellants deserve to be acquitted.
12. Consequently, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the
impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge in
Special Case No. 4 of 2002, dated 29.07.2005 is quashed and set aside.
13. The appellants/ accused are acquitted of charged offences
i.e. under section 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act .
14. As the appellants are on bail, they need not surrender. The
bail bond stands cancelled. Surety, if any, stands discharged. Fine
amount, if deposited, be refunded. The record and proceedings be sent
back to the concerned Court.
(SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)
mahajansb/
