[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mr. Sopan S/O Maroti Kamble vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14699
1 apeal 306.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 306 OF 2017
Mr. Sopan s/o Maroti Kamble,
Aged about 60 years, Occ. - Retired,
R/o Near Sai Baba Mandir Ward,
Nagpur Road, Chandrapur. .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra,
through Deputy Superintendent (ACB),
Gadchiroli. .... RESPONDENT
____________________________________________________________________
Mr. R.P. Durge, Counsel for the appellant,
Mr. S.S. Hulke, Addl.P.P. for the respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
CORAM : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 05-12-2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 22-12-2025
JUDGMENT :
The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order
dated 13.06.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, Chandrapur, in Special
(ACB) Case No. 1/2005, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as "the PC Act") and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment
for three months; and further convicted for offence under Section 13(1) (d) read with
Section 13 (2) of the PC Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for one month. The learned trial Court directed both sentences to run concurrently.
2 apeal 306.17
2. The prosecution's case in brief is as follows :
2.1 The complainant, Mr. Namdeo Khatke had sold his pair of bullocks to one
Maroti Narwate for ₹7,000/, which was assured to be paid within fifteen days. When
the complainant visited Maroti's house after the stipulated period, he could not find
one black bullock. On enquiry, he found that one black bullock had already been
sold at the Jainur weekly market for ₹4,000/-. The complainant then demanded the
amount and Maroti assured him to repay within fifteen days. The complainant had
no faith in Maroti and therefore brought back bullock of white colour with him.
Despite repeated demands, Maroti refused to pay and even quarrelled with him.
After nearly two and a half years, when Maroti again purchased a pair of bullocks
from another villager, the complainant detained those bullocks until his earlier dues
of ₹4,000/- were paid. At this stage, Maroti approached the appellant, who was then
serving as a Police Station Officer at Bhari Police Station, and returned with the
appellant to the complainant's house. The appellant instructed the complainant to
release the detained bullocks and to lodge a formal report, assuring the complainant
of appropriate action.
2.2 Acting on this instruction, the complainant lodged a written report at Bhari
Police Station on 12.01.2004 in the presence of Shamrao Pole. It is the prosecution's
case that immediately thereafter, the appellant demanded ₹500/- from the
complainant to initiate prompt action on his grievance. When the complainant
suggested that the amount be adjusted from the money to be recovered, the appellant
refused and insisted on receiving ₹500/- directly, to be paid on 17.01.2004.
3 apeal 306.17
2.3 Unwilling to pay an illegal gratification, the complainant approached the
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chandrapur, on 16.01.2004 and lodged a complaint. ACB
conducted the usual pre-trap procedure, applied phenolphthalein powder to five
notes of Rs.100/- denomination, and instructed the complainant to hand over the
money only if the appellant made a demand, with a pre-arranged signal to be given
thereafter. On the morning of 17.01.2004, the complainant, accompanied by panch
witness Rajesh Belkhule, met the appellant near a shop in Mokashiguda. After a
brief interaction, the appellant led them to the Bhari Police Station and into his
chamber. Inside, the appellant enquired whether the complainant had brought the
money, demanded the agreed amount, and reiterated that the matter would be
resolved swiftly if the money was paid.
2.4 On this demand, the complainant took out the tainted notes and handed them
to the appellant. The appellant accepted the money, counted the notes with his right
hand, momentarily questioned the presence of dust, and placed the money in the
pocket of his shirt. When the three of them stepped out of the police station, on
crossing the compound wall, the complainant gave the predetermined signal,
whereupon the raiding party rushed in. Upon seeing the raiding party approach, the
appellant immediately threw the tainted notes onto the ground, however, he was
apprehended on the spot. His hands were tested with phenolphthalein test, which
revealed violet colouration, indicating contact with the tainted notes. Similar tests
conducted on the complainant and on the tainted notes also produced violet
reactions. It was under this factual matrix that the legal machinery was set into
motion.
4 apeal 306.17
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, namely PW
No. 1 Namdeo Tukaram Khatke, complainant (Exh.11), PW No. 2 Rajesh
Dnyaneshwar Belkhule, Panch Witness (Exh.17), PW No.3 Ajay Mahadeo
Thombare, Panch Witness (Exh.30), PW No. 4 Shamrao Govindrao Pole (Exh. 33),
PW No. 5 Pankaj Rajkumar Gupta, Sanctioning Authority (Exh.34), PW No. 6
Jabbar Imam Khan, Investigating Officer (Exh 40).
4. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution further relied upon the Charge
framed against appellant (Exh. 7); Complaint lodged by Namdeo Khatke (Exh. 13);
list of articles found during personal search of complainant (Exh.14); report lodged
by Tukaram Khatke (Exh.15); panchnama No.1 (Exh.18); seizure memo (Exh. 21 -
22); list of articles found during personal search of the appellant (Exh.23); list of
articles found during personal search of Namdeo Khatke (Exh.24); sanction order
(Exh.35); complaint lodged by Jabbar Imam Khan (Exh.45); First Information
Report (Exh.46); Chemical Analysis Report (Exh.50); extract of Station Diary of
Sub-Police Station (Exh.53); Statement of appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
(Exh.56).
5. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
learned Special Judge held that the prosecution evidence, which is cogent,
consistent, reliable and sufficient, establishes that the appellant accepted illegal
gratification of Rs. 500/- from the complainant for taking action on his report dated
12.1.2004. The demand made itself was illegal. The acceptance of gratification was
other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing favour in the
exercise of his official function. The learned trial Court noted that the prosecution
5 apeal 306.17
has proved that the appellant accepted or obtained or agreed to accept any
gratification other than legal remuneration from the complainant. The learned trial
Court, therefore, convicted the appellant against which the present appeal is
preferred.
6. Heard learned Counsel Mr. R.P. Durge for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Hulke,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to
establish the foundational requirement of demand, which is the sine qua non for
conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. It
was contended that the complainant (PW-1) is a highly interested witness who
harboured prior animosity against the appellant because the appellant had initiated
proceedings under the Medical Practitioners Act against his son-in-law shortly prior
to the trap. According to the defence, such a background supplied a strong motive
for false implication. It was further urged that PW-2, the shadow panch, did not
narrate the alleged demand in his examination-in-chief and only made certain
admissions during cross-examination by the prosecution, which, in the submission
of the defence, cannot constitute reliable and substantive evidence. PW-3
admittedly was not a witness to the transaction at all as he remained outside the
compound. It was therefore argued that the prosecution is left with no credible,
independent witness who heard the alleged conversation constituting a demand.
7.1 The learned Counsel for appellant further argued that the alleged acceptance
of money was not voluntary. It was submitted that PW-2 himself admitted that on
being apprehended, the appellant stated that the currency was being thrust into his
6 apeal 306.17
pocket and that the money was meant for Police Constable Bandu Todase. The
conduct of the appellant in immediately throwing the notes on the ground upon
seeing the trap party was cited as consistent with a case of forced insertion or
planting and not conscious acceptance. Learned Counsel further contended that
several procedural irregularities vitiate the trap, both panch witnesses were
inexperienced and admitted to lapses of memory. Their signatures were taken on
several documents prior to the trap, raising the probability of pre-fabrication. PW-4,
who supports the initial demand, is admittedly closely related to the complainant
and therefore not independent. The appellant also challenged the validity of the
sanction order, arguing that the sanctioning authority failed to indicate the exact
source of power or the appointing/removing authority of the PSI, thereby casting
doubt on its legal competence. It was lastly contended that mere recovery of tainted
currency and positive chemical tests do not establish the offence in the absence of a
proven and voluntary demand, and therefore the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
7.2 To fortify his submission, learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the
judgment in Wasudeo s/o Nathuji Ukey vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in
2024 ALL MR (Cri) 822.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that :
8.1 The prosecution has proved all essential ingredients beyond reasonable
doubt. It was argued that PW-1 gave a consistent account of the demand made by the
appellant on 12.01.2004 and reiterated the same demand on 17.01.2004. His
testimony was described as natural, detailed, and standing firm in cross-
examination. The prosecution asserted that PW-2, though initially reticent,
7 apeal 306.17
unequivocally admitted in cross-examination that the appellant enquired whether the
money had been brought, and thereafter accepted, counted, and kept the bribe
amount in his shirt pocket. These admissions, according to the learned Addl.P.P.,
amount to substantive evidence and independently corroborate the complainant. It
was further urged that PW-3, though not a witness to the exact handing over,
corroborated every other material circumstance, including the pre-trap procedures,
the signal, the apprehension of the appellant, the recovery of tainted currency, the
tallying of serial numbers and the positive phenolphthalein tests on the appellant's
hands, pocket, shirt and the currency notes. The prosecution contended that these
facts, taken cumulatively, form a complete and unbroken chain pointing to guilt.
8.2 According to the learned Addl.P.P., the defence theory of forced insertion of
bribe amount in the pocket of the appellant is inherently improbable and contrary to
scientific evidence. It was pointed out that both hands of the appellant tested positive
and that his shirt pocket also bore phenolphthalein traces, which cannot occur if the
appellant were an involuntary recipient. The prosecution argued that the appellant's
conduct of throwing the notes upon seeing the raiding party is not consistent with
innocence. The alleged motive of enmity was dismissed as speculative and
unsupported by any defence evidence. The learned Addl.P.P. further argued that the
sanction order is valid, as PW-5 categorically deposed that he scrutinised the
material and applied his mind before issuing the sanction, and that minor technical
defects do not vitiate proceedings under Section 19(3) of the PC Act. It was
submitted that the prosecution has duly proved demand, acceptance and recovery,
and that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act stands fully attracted.
9. Before proceeding to the analytical discussion and the ultimate conclusion, a
8 apeal 306.17
preliminary evaluation of the prosecution's evidence is warranted.
10. PW-1 (Complainant): PW-1 Namdeo Khatke, aged 59 years, deposed that he
knew the appellant, who at the relevant time was serving as a Police Station Officer
at Bhari Police Station. The incident occurred about eight years prior to his
testimony. PW-1 stated that about 2 and 2 ¼ years prior to the incident, he had sold a
pair of bullocks to one Maroti Narwate for consideration of Rs. 7,000/-.
10.1 Maroti had agreed to pay the amount within 15 days. Shamrao Govindrao
Pole acted as a mediator. After 15 days, when PW-1 visited Maroti's house, he found
only one (white-coloured) bullock and was informed that the other (black-coloured)
bullock had been sold for Rs. 4,000/-. PW-1 demanded payment, but Maroti sought
further time of fifteen days, whereupon PW-1 took away the remaining white colour
bullock due to lack of trust. After about 2 and 2 ¼ years, when Maroti purchased
another pair of bullocks from Uttam Mane, PW-1 demanded Rs. 4,000/- from him
and detained the newly purchased bullocks. Maroti thereafter approached the
appellant, who accompanied him to PW-1's house and directed PW-1 to release the
bullocks and lodge a report, which PW-1 did on 12.01.2004. The written report
(Exh.12) bears his signature. PW-1 further stated that after lodging the report, the
appellant demanded Rs. 500/- to take prompt action, and PW-1 agreed to pay the
amount on 17.01.2004. On 16.01.2004, PW-1 approached the ACB, Chandrapur, and
lodged a complaint (Exh. 13) against the appellant.
10.2 On the next day at about 6.30 a.m., PW 1 was called in the office of ACB. A
trap was arranged in the presence of panch witnesses. Notes of Rs.100/-
denomination (five in number) were treated with phenolphthalein powder and kept
9 apeal 306.17
in his shirt pocket after pre-trap procedures and panchanama (Exh.14). PW 1 was
instructed to give signal after acceptance of bribe. PW 1 deposed that he and panch
witness Rajesh Belkhule met the appellant near a shop at Mokashiguda and
thereafter proceeded to the police station. Inside the chamber, the appellant enquired
whether he had brought the amount and stated that his grievance would be settled
early if the amount was paid. PW-1 handed over the tainted money, which the
appellant accepted, counted with his right hand, and shaken it and dust was released.
Appellant enquired regarding the same and PW 1 replied it to be roadside dust.
Appellant folded the notes and kept in his shirt pocket. PW-1 after crossing the
compound wall of police station, gave the pre-arranged signal, whereupon the
raiding party arrived. Seeing them, the appellant threw the notes on the ground. Two
officials caught hold of the appellant. His hands were subjected to phenolphthalein
test and the solution turned violet. Similar test was performed on PW-1 and the shirt
pocket, which also turned violet. Post-trap panchanama was drawn (Exh. 16) and the
tainted currency notes (Article-B) were seized. PW-1 identified the appellant in the
Court.
10.3 In cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that no prior complaint or written
notice was issued to Maroti regarding recovery of money before 12.01.2004. He
stated that he was illiterate and could only sign. He denied suggestions that the
appellant was not present when Exh. 12 was lodged, that the demand was made by
Constable Bandu in the name of the appellant, or that the appellant refused to take
any action against Maroti regarding an old transaction of bullock-cart or asked him
to approach a Court for recovery of money. PW-1 also denied that due to fear of a
theft case filed by Maroti he released the bullocks. PW-1 admitted that his son-in-
10 apeal 306.17
law, Dr. Dhrupat Jammunde, was prosecuted by the appellant under Section 33 of
the Medical Practitioners Act and was also arrested in an IPC case on 10.01.2004.
He denied the suggestion that due to enmity arising therefrom he falsely implicated
the appellant. PW- 1 denied that the money was forcibly inserted in the pocket of the
appellant and asserted that the demand and acceptance were voluntary. He denied
the defence suggestion that no demand was ever made by the appellant and that the
case was fabricated.
11. Deposition of PW-2 (Shadow Panch Witness): PW-2 stated that in January
2004 he was serving as a Clerk in the North Chandrapur Circle, Forest Division. On
16.01.2004, he received an official communication directing him to attend the Anti-
Corruption Bureau (ACB), Chandrapur, where he attended around 4.00-4.30 p.m.
along with Ajay Thombare (Forest Guard). At the ACB office, the complainant
Namdeo Khatke and other officials were present, and PW-2 was introduced to the
complainant. PW-2 deposed that he was instructed to report again the following
morning, and accordingly appeared at ACB at about 7.00-7.30 a.m. He was
informed that the complainant had lodged a complaint regarding demand of 500/- by
the appellant, who was a Police Station Officer. The complaint (Exh.13) bears his
signature as a panch witness. Demonstration of phenolphthalein test was conducted
and five currency notes of 100/- denomination coated with powder were kept in the
shirt pocket of the complainant. Instructions regarding signalling after acceptance
were given. PW- 2 signed Panchanama (Exh.18). Thereafter, the raiding party
proceeded by Jeep to Bhari, reaching around 11.00 a.m., and the vehicle was halted
near a hospital/school. PW-2, along with the complainant, proceeded on foot to
locate the appellant. They found the appellant in a shop. After brief conversation, the
11 apeal 306.17
appellant proceeded to the police station, where they sat in his chamber. The
appellant wrote something resembling a report on paper, later seized as Exh.15.
PW-2 deposed that after leaving the chamber, the complainant gave a prearranged
signal and the trap team arrived. Some currency notes were lying near the compound
wall. The appellant was caught by the ACB team and thereafter hand-wash of the
appellant was taken in sodium carbonate solution which turned reddish, and the
samples were sealed (Articles D & E). The tainted notes and shirt of the appellant
were also seized under Exh.19, Exh.20, and Exh.21, which bear his signatures.
11.1 In cross-examination by the APP, PW-2 admitted that during the trap, he was
present with the complainant inside the chamber and had earlier stated before ACB
that there was conversation wherein appellant enquired about the money and
complainant responded affirmatively. He further admitted that the appellant accepted
the notes, counted them, enquired about the dust on notes and then kept the same in
his shirt pocket. He confirmed that the appellant threw notes on the ground after
noticing the trap party. He proved seizure memos Exh.22, Exh.23, Exh.24 and
Exh.26.
11.2 In cross-examination by learned Defence Counsel, PW-2 admitted that it was
his first experience as a panch witness. He stated that he did not remember several
details due to lapse of about eight years. He denied the suggestion that the money
was forcibly inserted into the pocket of the appellant or that the appellant had
refused to accept the money. He also denied any collusion with ACB or that he was
deposing falsely. He admitted that when the complainant shook hands with the
appellant, appellant commented on dust on complainant's hand. PW-2 further stated
12 apeal 306.17
that when the appellant was apprehended, appellant said that the money was being
forced upon him and was meant for PC Bandu Todase. PW-2 denied the defence
suggestion that the trap was fabricated. From the assessment of PW-2 it is noted that
PW2 is an independent government employee acting as shadow panch witness. He
corroborates the essential prosecution case regarding presence of complainant and
appellant at the time of alleged demand and acceptance, the trap procedure, color
change test, seizure of currency notes and shirt, identification of seized property, the
events following the pre-arranged signal. Minor omissions and lapses of recollection
attributed to passage of time. Cross-examination does not demolish core prosecution
narrative of acceptance of tainted currency.
12. Deposition of PW-3-(Panch Witness): PW-3 deposed that on 16.01.2004,
while on duty in the Forest Department, his superior officer directed him to attend
the ACB Office and assist the ACB in government work. Accordingly, he along with
Rajesh Belkhule reached the ACB Office around 4.30 p.m., where they were
informed regarding a complaint and instructed to report again the following morning
at 8.00 a.m. PW-3 stated that on 17.01.2004 at 8.00 a.m., he and Rajesh Belkhule
attended the ACB Office, where the complainant was present. The complaint was
shown and read over to them, and they signed the document. The characteristics of
phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution were demonstrated to the
panch witnesses and necessary instructions were given. The complainant produced
five notes of Rs.100/- each, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder and
kept in the left shirt pocket of the complainant after noting their serial numbers in
Panchanama No. 1 (Exh. 18), which bears the signatures of both panchas.
Thereafter, the raiding party proceeded in a government vehicle at about 8.30 a.m. to
13 apeal 306.17
Mouza Bhari and reached around 11.30 a.m. The vehicle was halted some distance
away, after which the complainant and PW 2 proceeded towards the village,
followed by PW-3 and the raiding team. On the way, the appellant met the
complainant and PW 2 at store, and after some conversation, they all proceeded to
the police station. PW- 3 and the raid party waited outside the compound wall. After
about 30 minutes, the complainant gave the pre-arranged signal upon which PW-3
and the raid party rushed inside. The appellant was apprehended by the police, and
upon noticing the raid team, he threw the tainted notes on the ground. On the
instructions of the ACB Officer, PW-3 picked up the notes and thereafter all
proceeded to the police station. PW-3 deposed that sodium carbonate solution was
sprinkled on the currency notes, which turned purple, and the serial numbers were
found to tally with those in panchnama No. 1.
12.1 In cross-examination, PW-3 stated that this was his first occasion to act as a
panch witness. The notes were sealed in an envelope and seized. He further stated
that when sodium carbonate solution was sprinkled on the shirt pocket of the
accused, purple stains appeared, and the shirt was seized under Exh. 21 which bears
his signature. A diary and other documents were also seized from the appellant under
Exh. 22. Panchanama No. 2 (Exh. 20) was prepared and bears signatures of PW-3
and PW 2. Both hands of the appellant were dipped separately into sodium
carbonate solution, which turned purple, and samples were sealed in two bottles
under Exh. 19.
12.2 PW-3 further stated that after refreshing memory, he recalled that the right-
hand fingers of the complainant were tested in solution and the colour also turned
14 apeal 306.17
purple, and the same was seized under Exh. 16. He admitted that the ACB took his
name and address on paper on 16.01.2004. He could not recollect whether 2-3
persons were present along with the complainant at the ACB office. He did not
recollect the full name of the complainant, remembering only his surname. He stated
that the grievance of the complainant concerned non-receipt of money relating to
sale of bullocks but did not know from whom the amount was due. He stated that
prior to leaving for the trap, his signature and that of PW 2 were taken on several
documents. He denied the suggestion that ACB officials instructed them to depose
according to those documents. He admitted that he was stationed outside the
compound wall and that he did not witness the actual transaction between the
complainant and the appellant. He could not say whether the appellant threw the
money when the complainant attempted to give it to him. PW-3 denied the
suggestion that the appellant stated he never demanded money and that the report
was accepted by one Bandu Todase. He denied the suggestion that documents
including Exh. 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 & 30 were prepared later at the ACB office and
that his signatures were obtained there. He denied being threatened with
departmental action or having deposed falsely.
12.3 PW-3 is an independent panch witness, a Government employee with no
allegation of animosity toward the appellant. His evidence corroborates the
procedure of trap, handling of tainted currency notes, chemical test results, matching
of serial numbers, and seizure of shirt and materials. Though he did not witness the
actual passing of notes due to his location outside the compound wall, he
corroborates the post-signal events and scientific evidence supporting the
prosecution case. Minor memory lapses do not affect core evidentiary value as they
15 apeal 306.17
relate to peripheral aspects. Cross-examination does not materially discredit the
prosecution version.
13. Deposition of PW-4 - Relative of the Complainant : PW-4, Shri Shamrao
Govindrao Pole deposed that he knows PW 1 Namdeo Tukaram Khatke. In the year
2004, PW 1 had sold a pair of bullocks to one Maroti Narwate. The said Maroti had
sold one bullock in the market but thereafter refused to pay the balance amount to
PW 1. Because of this, a quarrel occurred and PW 1 lodged a report in the police
station. At that time, the appellant was present and demanded an amount of Rs. 500/-
from PW 1 stating that it was for "tea etc." PW 1 told him that he had to recover an
amount of Rs. 7,000/- from Maroti and if the amount was received, he would pay
Rs. 500- 1,000 from that amount. The appellant insisted that the amount should be
paid first. PW 1 agreed to pay within 4-8 days.
13.1 In cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that he has good relations with PW 1
and that PW 1 is his relative. He stated that he could not specify the exact date or
month of the bullock transaction. He denied that PC Bandu Todase demanded
money in the name of the appellant or that he had not met the appellant in the police
station. He denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded on 8.6.2004. He
further denied that he is deposing falsely.
14. Deposition of PW-5 - Sanctioning Authority: PW-5, former Special Inspector
General of Police, Nagpur Range, deposed that between 2002 and 2005 he held the
said post. In 2004, papers of investigation of Crime No. 3002/2004 for offences
under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act were placed before him. After
16 apeal 306.17
scrutiny and application of mind, he found a prima facie case to accord sanction for
prosecution of the appellant. Accordingly, he issued the sanction order (Exh. 35). He
identified his signature on the order and stated that its contents are true and correct.
Covering letter under the signature of Dr. S.G. Ingale was produced at Exh. 36. He
deposed that he was the competent authority to accord sanction against the
appellant.
14.1 In cross-examination, he stated that since 1985 the post of Special Inspector
General of Police existed. He denied that the Director General of Police was the
appointing or removing authority of PSI in 2004. He stated that he was unsure
whether PSI was Class-II officer in 2004. He admitted that he must have gone
through the provisions of Section 19 of the PC Act and that delegation of powers
existing under the Bombay Police Act and that he is aware of Bombay Police
(Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1956. He denied that such powers were not delegated
to Special Inspector General of Police or that he was not competent to remove him.
He admitted that he had not mentioned the source of his power in the sanction order
and that he had not appointed the appellant, but denied the suggestion that on that
ground he was not competent to accord sanction or that he signed the order without
studying the papers. He admitted that Dr. S.G. Ingale, his reader had prepared the
sanction order as per draft and placed it before him for signature, but denied the
suggestion that he accorded the sanction without knowing the complainant or the
nature of the complaint, or that he granted sanction mechanically, without studying
the papers, or under pressure from ACB.
15. Deposition of PW-6 - Investigating Officer : PW-6 stated that he was Dy. S.P.
(ACB) Gadchiroli from 23-7-2001 till 12-7-2005. He stated that on 16.1.2004, he
17 apeal 306.17
received telephonic instructions from Addl. S.P. (ACB), Nagpur, Shri Gawai, to
proceed to ACB Office Chandrapur to meet the complainant. Accordingly, he
reached at 4.00 p.m. and reduced the complaint of the complainant into writing
(Exh. 13). He thereafter requested the Forest Conservator to provide two panch
witnesses and requested the Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur to provide one
lady constable (vide letters Exhs. 41-43). On 17.1.2004 at 5.30 a.m., the
complainant, panch witnesses and staff were present. The complaint was read over
to panchas, who also signed it. The complainant produced five currency notes of Rs.
100/- each; their numbers were noted in Panchnama No. 1. Phenolphthalein powder
was applied and demonstrations were carried out. Panchnama No. 1 was prepared
(Exh. 18). Thereafter the trap party proceeded for Bhari and reached at village
Mokashi Guda at 11.00 a.m. The complainant and PW 2 proceeded to meet the
appellant. The appellant met them on the way and accompanied them to the police
station. All went inside the police station. Trap party waited out side the compound
wall. At about 12.00 noon the complainant gave the pre-determined signal. PW 2
disclosed that the appellant had accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 500 and kept it in
his shirt pocket, but on seeing the trap party, he threw it on the floor. He was caught,
and he appeared frightened. Sodium carbonate test was conducted on both hands of
the appellant, both turned purple. Notes were recovered, serial numbers on the notes
were tallied, phenolphthalein tested positive, and articles were sealed and seized
(Exh. 19). Shirt of the appellant also tested positive (Exh. 21). Panchnama No. 2
(Exh. 20) was drawn, FIR registered (Exh. 46), and seized property was sent for
chemical analysis (Exh. 48). Competent authority was contacted and after sanction,
charge-sheet was filed.
18 apeal 306.17
15.1 In cross-examination, PW-6 denied various suggestions regarding fabrication,
coercion of panch witnesses, PC Bandu Todase demanding bribe in the name of
appellant, and preparation of panchnamas later in the ACB office. He denied that the
complainant and PW-4 were Naxalite supporters or that the appellant had been
falsely implicated due to previous disputes. He further denied that the appellant
never demanded or accepted the bribe amount.
16. Upon perusal, the prosecution case, as reflected in the depositions of PW-1 to
PW-6 and the material on record, is that the complainant Namdeo Khatke (PW-1)
was induced to lodge a report against one Maroti Narwate for non-payment after
sale of bullocks. Subsequently, the appellant, then a Police Station Officer, allegedly
demanded Rs.500/- from the complainant to "settle" the grievance and accepted the
bribe amount in his chamber on 17.01.2004. The complaint reported the same to
ACB, a trap was arranged in presence of panch witnesses and currency notes were
treated with phenolphthalein powder, trap was executed and on giving the pre-
arranged signal, ACB officers apprehended the appellant, recovered the notes and
seized clothing and tested hand-wash samples which turned positive. The
prosecution relies on the contemporaneous panchnamas, seizure memos and the
phenolphthalein tests recorded in the evidence.
17. The question for determination is whether the evidence of demand and
acceptance, and the chain of trapping and seizure, is established beyond a reasonable
doubt. In corruption prosecutions, the dignity of panchnama procedures, credibility
of panch witnesses and the integrity of scientific tests are pivotal. The Court must
scrutinise the evidence for internal consistency, possible motives for fabrication, the
19 apeal 306.17
chain of custody of seized articles and whether defence challenges succeed in
creating a reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has given this observation
in the case of T. Shankar Prasad vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2004)3 SCC 753.
The relevant paragraph of said judgment is reproduced below-
"11. Proof of the fact depends upon the degree of probability of its
having existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that
of a prudent man acting in any important matter concerning him.
Fletcher Moulton L.J. in Hawking v. Powells Tillery Steam Coal Co. Ltd.
observed as follows:
"Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration,
because that is impossible; it must mean such evidence as would induce
a reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion".
12. The said observation has stood the test of time and can now be
followed as the standard of proof. In reaching the conclusion the Court
can use the process of inferences to be drawn from facts produced or
proved. Such inferences are akin to presumptions in law. Law gives
absolute discretion to the Court to presume the existence of any fact
which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the Court may
have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct,
public or private business, vis-à-vis the facts of the particular case. The
discretion is clearly envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act."
18. PW-1 is the complainant and the principal protagonist for the prosecution.
He is an illiterate agriculturist who admitted he can only sign his name. His
evidence chronicles the antecedent civil dispute with Maroti, lodging of Exh. 12 on
12.01.2004, subsequent approach to the appellant, and the later demand and
acceptance of Rs. 500/- in the appellant's chamber. PW-1's narrative is
corroborated in essentials by independent panch witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-6)
and by the documents (Exhs. 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 & 21). Defence suggestions
that the complainant had motive to fabricate based on enmity (prosecution of his
son-in-law) were specifically negatived by PW-1 and are not supported by
independent evidence. Minor inconsistencies on peripheral points such as precise
20 apeal 306.17
dates of earlier transactions do not detract from the reliability of his direct account
of the trap and passing of notes. On the whole PW-1's testimony is cogent and
credible on the core aspects.
19. The defence argument regarding minor discrepancies and embellishments
particularly when statements are recorded after a long lapse of time, do not render
the prosecution case unreliable so long as the core or substratum of the case
remains intact. Similar observation was upheld by the Delhi High Court in Ram
Karam Pathak vs. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9116. The observations made in
the said judgment are as follows;
"40. I do not find any merit in the submission of the appellant that there
is material discrepancy, or contradiction in the depositions of the
complainant (PW-7) and the panch witness (PW-6). A statement of a
witness has to be understood in the context in which it is made. The same
incident - which is witnessed by two or more witnesses, may be perceived
differently by both/each of them. Thus, different eyewitnesses to the same
incident, may narrate the incident in the manner that each of them
perceives it. It is not necessary that the versions of both are identical,
and merely because they are not identical, the two versions cannot be
rejected as being contradictory, inconsistent and, therefore unreliable.
What is necessary to be seen is whether the substratum, or the crux of
the different versions is the same, or not. If it is, the same may be
accepted by the Court. The complainant (PW-7) in his examination-in-
chief did not elaborate on the details of the conversation that he had with
the accused - dialogue by dialogue. He simply states that the accused
demanded the bribe money. The statement that the accused demanded
the bribe money is the conclusion drawn by the complainant (PW-7) in
the context of his previous interaction with the accused, as narrated in
the complaint. In his cross-examination, the complainant (PW-7) stated
that the accused asked him "lao paise do", whereafter he took out the
treated G.C. notes and gave the same to the accused. Thus, the crux or
substratum of the statement of the complainant is that the accused
demanded the bribe money and that he gave the same to the accused
thereafter.
44. It is well-settled that minor embellishments or discrepancies
naturally creep in, when statements of witnesses are recorded after
several years of the incident. In the present case, the trap was laid and
raid conducted on 05.01.2001. However, the statement of the panch
witness (PW-6) was recorded on 12.03.2007 and 17.07.2007. The
21 apeal 306.17
statement of the complainant (PW-7) was recorded on 12.03.2007 and
15.05.2007. Thus, there was a gap of nearly 6 ½ years between the date
of the incident, and the recording of the statements, and a natural loss of
memory, and imperfection in recollection is bound to result with passage
of such a long time. This also explains the discrepancy in the statements
of the panch witness (PW-6) and complainant (PW-7) with regard to the
place at which the hands/pocket wash was conducted and the post-raid
proceedings (Ex. PW-8/A) drawn up, which are minor in nature, and do
not shake the core case of the prosecution. Reference may be made to
Syed Ahmed (supra). These submissions of the appellant are, therefore,
rejected."
In the present case, the evidence of an independent panch witness, even if
not perfect in every minute detail, deserves full acceptance when it supports the
core prosecution story and is consistent with scientific evidence, such as
phenolphthalein tests and contemporaneous panchnamas.The minor inconsistencies
pointed out by the defence do not in any manner dent the substantive truthfulness
of PW-1's account, which is further corroborated by PW-2, the pre-trap and post-
trap documents, and the chemical test results.
20. PW-2 (Rajesh Belkhule) and PW-3 (Ajay Thombare) are independent
government employees who acted as panch and shadow panch witnesses. Both
were present at the ACB office during the pre-trap demonstrations, signed
Panchnama No. 1, which contained the serial numbers of the treated notes,
witnessed the pre-arranged signal and the subsequent raid, and identified the seized
currency and shirt in court. PW-3 candidly admitted he was stationed outside the
compound wall and did not witness the physical transfer, however, he did witness
the post-signal events and the recovery of notes. PW-2 was present inside the
chamber and specifically testified to the appellant counting and pocketing the
notes. Their evidence deals with the written panchnamas and seizure memos. The
22 apeal 306.17
lapse of recollection attributable to the passage of eight years is natural and was
honestly conceded. It does not amount to impeachment of their core testimony. As
independent, public-servant witnesses, their testimony materially corroborates PW-
1 and strengthens the prosecution's case.
21. Receipt of telephonic instructions, reduction of the complainant's statement
to writing, arrangement of panch witnesses, recording of serial numbers in
Panchnama No.1, application of phenolphthalein powder, execution of the trap,
drawing of Panchnama No.2 and seizure of articles and hand-wash samples. This
procedural sequence described by PW-6 is comprehensive and consistent with the
contemporaneous documents produced. There is no material on record to suggest
mala fides or procedural manipulation by the ACB. Defence suggestions of
fabrication, collusion or after-the-fact preparation of panchnamas were specifically
denied by PW-6 and are not supported by any independent evidence.
22. The prosecution placed reliance on the application of phenolphthalein
powder to the five notes and subsequent sodium carbonate test on the notes, shirt
pocket and hand-wash solutions, all of which resulted in the characteristic colour
change. The serial numbers of the notes were duly noted in the pre-trap panchnama
and were later verified and found to tally at the time of seizure. The hand-wash
bottles and seized clothing were sealed, and their seizure was recorded in the
respective memos, which were proved and identified by panch witnesses in trial.
The matching of serial numbers, the physical recovery of the tainted currency notes
at the scene, and positive chemical tests on the appellant's shirt pocket and hand-
23 apeal 306.17
wash together establish a reliable chain of custody and provide scientific
corroboration of prosecution case. Defence attempts to concentrate on the
possibility that notes were planted or forcibly inserted into his pocket, but the
independent panch testimony coupled with the positive test results on separate
samples (notes, shirt, and hand-wash) considerably reduce the plausibility of such
an afterthought fabrication. It is a well settled principle that while an offence under
the PC Act requires proof of both demand and acceptance, the recovery of tainted
currency notes and the positive phenolphthalein test constitutes strong
corroborative evidence of acceptance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Narsinga
Rao vs. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691 has held that mere recovery of
phenolphthalein smeared currency notes from the accused is not by itself
conclusive proof of acceptance of bribe but when recovery is accompanied by other
proved circumstances, it permits a presumption that the accused voluntarily
accepted the bribe. The relevant para is reproduced below-
"19. Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act says that the
court may presume that "a man who is in the possession of stolen
goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods
knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession."
That illustration can profitably be used in the present context as well
when prosecution brought reliable materials that appellant's pocket
contained phenolphthalein smeared currency notes for Rs. 500/- when
he was searched by PW-7 DSP of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. That by
itself may not or need not necessarily lead to a presumption that he
accepted that amount from somebody else because there is a
possibility of somebody else either stuffing those currency notes into
his pocket or stealthily inserting the same therein. But the other
circumstances which have been proved in this case and those
preceding and succeeding the searching out of the tainted currency
notes, are relevant and useful to help the court to draw a factual
presumption that appellant had willingly received the currency notes".
23. The trial record shows that PW-1 and PW-2 specifically testified about the
appellant inquiring whether the complainant had brought the money and, on
24 apeal 306.17
affirmative reply, accepted the notes, counted them and placed them in his shirt
pocket. PW-4's evidence supports the circumstance of a demand having been made
earlier at the police station where the appellant is said to have insisted on payment.
While some defence witnesses and the appellant may have suggested the
involvement of other police personnel, the contemporaneous panchnama, the
admission by the appellant at the material time (as reported by panch witnesses)
and the appellant's conduct in throwing the notes on noticing the trap party are
circumstances which point to demand/acceptance by the appellant. The defence
hypothesis of insertion or forced planting of currency notes is not substantiated on
the record.
24. The defence contentions aired in cross-examination were: (a) the absence of
prior written notice to Maroti before 12.01.2004; (b) possible motive of the
complainant arising from enmity; (c) that the appellant never demanded or
accepted the money and that notes were planted or forcibly inserted in his pocket;
and (d) procedural irregularities in panchnama preparation. Each contention was
met by contemporaneous documents and independent panch testimony. The
absence of an earlier written notice in respect of the civil dispute does not weaken
the existence of a grievance or the subsequent demand, it speaks only to the
antecedent civil remedy. Motive for false implication was suggested but not
supported by independent corroboration. The mere presence of a past prosecution
of a relative does not establish fabrication. Allegations that panchnamas were
prepared later or that panch witnesses were coerced were specifically denied and
are not corroborated by the record. The contemporaneous complaint and
panchnama, the presence of two independent government panch witnesses who
25 apeal 306.17
witnessed the procedure, the positive phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate tests
on notes, shirt and hand-wash samples, the recovery of the same serially recorded
notes at the scene, the appellant's conduct when the trap party arrived has
established acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The standard in criminal trials is
not to eliminate every possible hypothesis of innocence but to exclude reasonable
doubt. The defence scenarios put forward have not succeeded in creating such
doubt in the face of documentary and independent testimonial corroboration.
25. PW-5 produced the sanction order for prosecution under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act. Questions were raised about specification of
source of his power in the sanction order. However, the witness explained his
position and the material demonstrates that the competent authority had considered
the papers and issued sanction. Mere omission of particular technical recitals in a
sanction order would not automatically invalidate the sanction unless it is shown
that the authority lacked jurisdiction or the order was a sham. There is nothing on
record to vitiate the validity of sanction; consequently, prosecution proceeded
lawfully.
26. The record shows the deposition of witnesses approximately eight years after
the event. Natural memory lapses on peripheral matters were admitted by panch
witnesses. Such lapses, when confined to non-core facts, do not affect the evidentiary
value of their testimony about the trap, seizure and tests. The delay in trial and fading
memory is a factor to be taken into account, but here the contemporaneous
documentary record reinforces the oral testimony and mitigates the effect of memory
lapses.
26 apeal 306.17
27. The evidence on record demonstrates, beyond reasonable doubt, that the
appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500/- from the complainant. The
testimonies of the complainant and independent witnesses, corroborated by
scientific tests and proper documentation, satisfy the requirements for establishing
offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act. The procedural
compliance regarding sanction and conduct of the trap has been duly proved.
28. For the reasons set out above, the prosecution case on demand and
acceptance of bribe by the appellant is established beyond reasonable doubt by
cogent and corroborative evidence i.e. contemporaneous complaint and panchnama
recording serial numbers of tainted notes; independent panch witnesses who
witnessed the pre-trap demonstration, sign the panch nama, and corroborate the
events at the scene; positive chemical test results on the notes, shirt and hand-wash
samples; and consistent seizure memos and identification of seized articles in
court. Defence suggestions of fabrication, planting or forceful insertion of currency
notes are not borne out by the record.
29. In view of the foregoing, the prosecution has made out a case against the
appellant. The evidence is credible, consistent, and corroborated by independent
witnesses and objective material.
30. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court in respect of
offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act deserves to be
upheld. The appeal insofar as it challenges the sufficiency and reliability of the
27 apeal 306.17
prosecution evidence fails and is liable to be dismissed. Sentencing and ancillary
relief, if any, may be considered in accordance with law and the facts adjudicated at
trial.
31. The importance of meticulous contemporaneous documentation in trap
cases, requires ACB to record serial numbers of currency notes, obtain signatures
of independent panch witnesses and seal samples, steps materially aid proof. The
PC Act, aims to criminalize the misuse of public office for personal gain. Section 7
prohibits a public servant from accepting any gratification other than legal
remuneration as a motive or reward for performing or forbearing to perform any
official act, while Section 13(1)(d) penalizes a public servant who dishonestly
accepts or agrees to accept any gratification, and Section 13(2) extends liability
where such gratification is demanded or accepted as a reward or inducement for
performing, or refraining from performing, official duties. In the present case, the
accused, a serving Police Station Officer, allegedly demanded and accepted Rs.
500/- from PW-1 to expedite official action regarding recovery of money due from
Maroti Narwate. The testimony of PW-1, corroborated by independent panch
witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) and supported by scientific tests on currency notes and
the appellant's hands and shirt, establishes that the appellant sought and accepted
gratification in exchange for performing his official duty, beyond reasonable doubt.
The procedural safeguards, including pre- and post-trap panchnamas, proper
seizure, and recording of serial numbers, satisfy the requirements for admissible
and reliable evidence under the Act. Thus, the appellant's actions squarely fall
within the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the PC Act.
28 apeal 306.17
Order
(i) Criminal appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) The sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant shall be entitled
to set-off for the period already undergone in custody under Section 428 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. All fines and conditions imposed by the learned trial
Court are also upheld.
(iii) A certified copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for
compliance and for ensuring that the remainder of the sentence is carried out in
accordance with law.
( NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.)
adgokar
Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/12/2025 14:46:24
