[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Dinesh Dnyaneshwar Kokate on 19 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:36289
-1- ALS-11-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 11 OF 2025
The State of Maharashtra,
Through: Police Inspector,
Police Station, CIDCO,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ... Applicant
Versus
Dinesh S/o. Dnyaneshwar Kokate
Age : 39 years, Occu : Jr. Clerk at
Triable Government Boys Hostel, Jalna
R/o. Plot No.1, Vrundavan Colony, Jalna ... Respondent
......
Mr. N. D. Raje, APP for Applicant - State.
Ms. N. S. Bagwe, Advocate for Respondent.
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 18 DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19 DECEMBER 2025
ORDER :
1. This leave to file appeal is at the instance of State as it is
keen in challenging the judgment and order dated 02.03.2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case ACB
No.36 of 2016, by which present respondent was acquitted from charge
under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
-2- ALS-11-2025
2. In nutshell, prosecution was launched against respondent on
receipt of complaint from PW2 complainant regarding bribe amount of
Rs.400/- by accused for preparing her salary bill for the month of
November 2015. On receipt of complaint, ACB authorities completed
formalities of planning, executed the trap and the accused was
accordingly apprehended and tried vide Special Case ACB No. 36 of
2016, which ended up in acquittal.
Aggrieved by the above judgment and order of acquittal, as
State is desirous of challenging the order of acquittal, instant leave
application has pressed into service.
3. Learned APP would apprise the court about the background
of the case, in which complainant was demanded bribe by accused, who,
was responsible for drawing salary. Learned APP pointed out that, for
preparing salary bill for the month of November 2015, accused had
demanded Rs.400/- by way of bribe. As complainant PW2 was not willing
to meet the demand of bribe, she approached ACB authorities and lodged
complaint.
4. Learned APP further pointed out that, on receipt of
compliant, Investigating Officer summoned independent panchas and
apprised them about the grievance of the complainant. That, prior to
-3- ALS-11-2025
main trap, verification of demand was got done and its transcript was
prepared. That, there was voice recording. That, both PW2 complainant
and PW3 shadow panch were consistent on the point of demand, but
such evidence has not been considered by learned trial court. He would
further submit that, sanctioning authority had also accorded sanction
after complete application of mind, but this aspect also is not
appreciated. According to learned APP, State has a good case on merits,
and therefore, he urges to accord leave to file appeal.
5. In answer to above, learned counsel for respondent pointed
out that, firstly, sanctioning authority had not considered the entire
material before according sanction, and there is discussion to that extent
in the judgment. She further submitted that, here, very demand was
alleged to be by way of gestures, but what was the exact gesture, was not
brought on record, and therefore, according to her, very essential like
demand itself was not proved and was rather rendered doubtful. As
regards to acceptance is concerned, she pointed out that, very
conversation between complainant and accused, of which there is clear
admission by complainant that accused in response to offer a bribe had
uttered that 'let it be' and as thereby refused to accept the money. Thus,
according to her, even aspect of acceptance is not proved. She lastly
pointed out that, though there was conversation at the time of
-4- ALS-11-2025
verification, the same has not come on record, and therefore, as on
various counts, case of prosecution was rendered doubtful, she justifies
the order of acquittal and prays to refuse leave for want of merits.
6. Heard. Perused the papers. It seems that, prosecution was
launched against present respondent on receipt of complaint from PW2
complainant, who was also working with accused in the Triable
Government Hostel, regarding demand of Rs.400/- for clearing the salary
bill of PW2 complainant for the month of November 2015. PW2
complainant seems to have approached ACB authorities and reported the
demand, resulting into further arrangements of laying trap to apprehend
the accused, after there is demand and acceptance. In support of its case,
prosecution seems to have adduced evidence of PW1 sanctioning
authority, PW2 complainant, PW3 shadow panch and PW4 Investigating
Officer.
7. Here, as pointed out, sanctioning authority has not taken
into account the crucial aspect of salary of complainant already been
approved and generated on 03.12.2015 and there is failure to consider
that complaint was post approval and generation of salary of complainant
for the month of November 2015 as complaint is of 04.12.2015. Even
Investigating Officer had admitted that, salary was already generated on
-5- ALS-11-2025
03.12.2015 itself. Therefore, if this was the fact situation, and if at all
sanctioning authority had perused the entire material, probably above
aspect would have come to the notice of sanctioning authority, but the
same does not seem to have been taken into account. In cross, this
witness is unable to state whether the Triable Government Hostel where
the accused and complainant were officiating, at all had any computer
facility. His answer that, on going through the FIR and report received
from ACB, sanction has been accorded, it goes to show that, other
material has not been taken into account. There are reasons to hold that
sanction is accorded in mechanical manner, without applying proper
mind.
8. As pointed out, it does emerge that, complainant and
shadow panch are not consistent and lending support to each other.
According to complainant, there was verification of demand by recording
voice conversation, then she and accused reaching the hostel and
conversation taking between herself and accused regarding salary.
According to her, at that time, accused had said unless Rs.400/- is paid
he would not draw the salary, and therefore, she offered it to him by her
right hand and accused pocketed the amount. Such is not the version of
PW3 shadow panch because, in paragraph 6 of his examination-in-chief
itself, he has stated when they went accused, accused was not present,
-6- ALS-11-2025
and therefore, complainant herself made him a phone call, but same was
not responded. He further stated that, later on, accused was seeing
coming towards the building and that time, complainant herself had told
accused that, she had brought the money. Consequently, even before
demand, according to this witness, there is offer of bribe. Therefore,
aspect of demand itself come under shadow of doubt. It is fairly settled
position that, when demand is not proved, entire case of prosecution
collapsed and possession of tainted currency in absence of demand,
cannot be considered.
9. Here, including sanctioning authority and Investigating
Officer as well as complainant, there is admission that, salary bill of
November 2015 was already generated prior to the complaint itself. PW3
shadow panch, in paragraph 9 of the cross, has admitted that, the bill for
the month of November 2015 with signature of accused, was already
generated. Therefore, there was no reason to lodge complaint on next
day i.e. on 04.12.2015, as the purpose and work for which the demand
was allegedly made, was not in existence and was rather over.
10. Further it is also emerging that, at the time of conversation
between complainant and accused, while complainant had allegedly
offered currency, accused had said 'let it be', meaning thereby that he
-7- ALS-11-2025
was not accepting the currency. This also contributes to the weakness of
prosecution case regarding demand and acceptance.
11. Here, defence put up was that, complainant was disgruntled
and annoyed for deducting allowance towards HRA of the complainant,
who was occupying the Government residency in spite of orders of
vacating and as such complaint was itself motivated. In cross, there are
crucial admissions to this extent by complainant herself.
12. On consideration of above quality of evidence, in the
considered opinion of this court, the view that has been taken by learned
trial court regarding extension of benefit of doubt to the accused, is the
possible view. No fruitful purpose would be served by granting leave to
file appeal with such quality of evidence. Consequently no case being
made out merits for granting leave, I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
(i) The leave is refused.
(ii) The application is rejected.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
