Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Ramesh Bhagwanrao Gadhe on 23 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:19135
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2018
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Kranti Chowk Police Station,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ... Appellant
VERSUS
Ramesh Bhagwanrao Gadhe,
Age - 47 years, Occu. Deputy Engineer,
W.S. Sub Division, Z.P. Aurangabad
R/o. Flat No.20, Mistry Building
Adinathnagar, Garkheda Parisar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondent
(Orig. Accused)
......
Ms. D.S. Jape, APP for Appellant - State
Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, APP for Respondent
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 10 JULY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 23 JULY 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. The State has hereby assailed the impugned judgment and
order dated 27.04.2017 passed by learned District and Sessions
Judge-7, Aurangabad in Special Case (ACB) No.23 of 2013, by
which present respondent was charge-sheeted and tried for
offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act].
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{2}
BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
2. The sum and substance of the prosecution's case before
the trial court is that PW2-complainant, who was contractor, had
filled a tender floated by the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
for construction of a water tank. The complainant succeeded in
bagging the very tender and undertook the construction work
under the supervision of Technospert Ramvikas Pratishtan, who
was appointed as the technical consultant, and when the
construction work of the tank was completed up to 36%, he
demanded the bill amount. The committee directed him to bring
a letter from the Deputy Engineer, i.e. present respondent
(original accused). In that connection, he approached the
present respondent at his office on 21.05.2012.
3. The case of prosecution is that, for signing the
measurement book, respondent/accused demanded bribe of
Rs.20,000/-. As complainant was not willing to pay illegal
gratification, he approached ACB authorities, who planned trap
by arranging panchas and giving them necessary instructions. A
pre-trap verification was conducted and even a voice recording
of the demand was made. The complainant and the shadow
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{3}
pancha were made to approach the respondent/accused in his
office, where they were instructed to pay the bribe on demand.
On visiting, accused demanded the bribe, tainted currency was
handed over and the predetermined signal was relayed.
Accordingly, the raiding party apprehended the accused and as
such, trap was successful. After completing the formality of
investigation, accused was chargesheeted and tried by the
Special Court vide Special Case (ACB) No.23 of 2013.
4. During trial, prosecution rested its case on the evidence of
five witnesses and placed reliance on complaint, various
panchanamas and documentary evidence. Apart from the
sanction, prosecution rested its case on various grounds. On
appreciating the evidence and after hearing each of the sides,
learned trial Judge refused to accept the case of prosecution as
proved and acquitted the accused. Precisely feeling aggrieved by
the same, the State has come in appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of the appellant-State :
5. Learned APP would submit that, there is no dispute that
complainant was contractor and he was doing construction work
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{4}
of water tank in response to acceptance of his tender and was
entitled to receive payments for the work done. Present accused
was Deputy Engineer and his signature was required on
measurement book and for doing the same, it is pointed out
that, there was demand of Rs.20,000/- to PW2-complainant.
Learned APP further submitted that, after receipt of complaint,
independent panchas were called. Both, complainant and
pancha, were given necessary instructions. That, while planning
the trap, verification was done. That, tainted currency was
handed over with instructions to pay it on demand. That,
complainant was accompanied by pancha witnesses, who were
party to the demand as well as acceptance, and they both have
been examined and therefore essential ingredients for the
charge are available.
6. Further, learned APP pointed out that, prosecution has
also examined the witness who had accorded sanction after
applying his mind. That, evidence of this witness is consistent
and corroborated by the evidence of Investigating Officer. So
also, the complainant and the shadow pancha have lent support
to each other. Therefore, with such quality of evidence, it is her
submission that, learned trial Court ought to have convicted the
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{5}
accused by accepting the case of prosecution. According to
learned APP, there is incorrect appreciation of evidence as well
as of law. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and
order be quashed and set aside by allowing the appeal.
On behalf of the respondent :
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, who
placed written notes of argument on record, would submit that
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges. That,
evidence of complainant is not lending support to the evidence
of shadow pancha. Cross-examination of shadow pancha
demolishes the case of prosecution on both counts, i.e. demand
as well as acceptance. He took this Court through the answers
given by shadow pancha in his cross and pointed out that, at
crucial point of time, when there was demand and acceptance,
shadow pancha was not present in the room or cabin of the
accused and rather, was outside of the room and he candidly
admitted about inability to hear their communication. Thus,
according to learned counsel, essential requirements of demand
and acceptance are not cogently proved. That, there were
several other shortfalls in the case of prosecution. He pointed
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{6}
out that, in fact, in this case there was no demand itself, and it is
also accepted by PW3-shadow pancha in his cross-examination.
Therefore, for all above reasons, learned counsel for
respondent/accused justifies and supports the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal and urges for same treatment in
the appeal.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
8. In support of its case, prosecution has examined in all 5
witnesses. Their role and status and the sum and substance of
their evidence can be summarized as under :
PW1 Radhesham Mopalwar is the sanctioning authority.
PW2 Sushilkumar Shisodiya is the complainant. He deposed at
Exhibit 26 as under:
"My education qualification is B.E.(Civil). I am running
the business from 2007. On 11.12.2011 one tender notice
was published in Daily Mahanayak. It was regarding
constructing water tank and supplying water. The costs of
the said tender notice was Rs.33,02,160/-. As per the said
notice there was pr-conditions of experience of the work.
As I was having the said experience and I was fulfilling the
terms and conditions of the said tender, I filled the said
tender. I submitted the said tender on 17.12.2011 to Water
Supply and Sanitation Committee, Gandheli. My tender
was accepted as it was of lowest costs. On the same day all
the tenders were opened. My tender was accepted as it
was of lowest amount.
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{7}
02] On 23th April 2012 the work order was issued in my
favour. As per the said order Tecnospert Gramvikas
Pratishtan was appointed as Technical Consultant. As the
period for completion of the said work was nine months, I
started doing the work on 24.04.2012. After starting the
work Shri Shailesh Sonwane representative of Technical
Consultant Institute was present. Similarly, Sectional
Engineer Shri Balod of Water Supply Sub-Division and
Sanitation Committee Deputy Engineer Gadhe were also
present. The construction of the water tank was completed
upto bottom slab. I have made the pipe supply for water
distribution. As the said work was completed, I demanded
bill amount from the Committee. The work which was
completed by me was completed upto 36%. The
Committee informed me that their bank account is with
Bank of Maharashtra, Chikalthana and I should bring the
Letter from Deputy Engineer Shri Gadhe for withdrawing
the amount from the said bank. The Committee also
informed Shri Sonwane Technical Consultant to take the
measurement and record the same in measurement book.
Accordingly Shri Sonwane carried out the measurement
and recorded it in measurement book. Shri Sonwane
submitted the measurement book with Shri Balod on
21.05.2012. Shri Balod visited the spot and inspected the
work and thereafter signed on measurement book and
abstract. He asked me to approach Shri Gadhe for
payment of the bill.
03] On 31.05.2012 I visited the office of Shri Gadhe alongwith
the measurement book. It was about 11.00 a.m. He
perused the measurement book and told me that he
required 3% amount mentioned in the measurement book.
After calculation he demanded Rs.20,000/-. I told him that
I have not received amount of any bill and if the amount
of this bill will not be sanctioned the work will be stopped.
He told me that if I will not agree for this demand he will
not sign on the measurement book nor he will sent Letter
to the bank for releasing money. I said that amount of Rs.
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{8}
20,000/- is more. He told me that he will give me three
days but I should come with money on 4 th June. I accepted
it as I was not having any other alternative and left his
office. As I was not willing to give him money I went to
the Office of Anti-Corruption Bureau.
04] In that office I met Dy. S.P. Shri Brahmadeo Gawade. He
recorded my complaint and gave it to me for reading.
After reading the complaint 1 signed on it. Complaint now
shown to me is the same. It bears my signature. Contents
are correct. It is at Exh. 27. ........
05] .........
06] On 04.06.2012 at about 9.00 a.m. we went in the office of
Anti-corruption Bureau. Shri Gawade told me that voice
recorder is going to be used. He conducted the
demonstration about the working of the voice-recorder. It
was also directed to us that I and Shri Gore should go to
Water Supply Sub-Division Office, Delhi Gate,
Aurangabad. After parking the vehicle I should switch on
the voice recorder and should keep it in the left pocket of
my shirt. It was also directed to us that after switching on
the voice recorder, we should meet Shri Gadhe and
communicate with him regarding the work. It was also
directed to us that if Shri Gadhe will demand the bribe, we
should say that I am not having the sufficient amount and
I should take further date, place and time from him. It was
also directed to panch Shri Gore that he should
accompany me and he should check switching on of voice
recorder after parking the vehicle and he should carefully
hear the communication in between myself and Shri
Gadhe. After receiving this direction we started from anti-
corruption bureau at about 9.30 a.m.
07] We reached Water Supply Subdivision Office at 9.45 a.m. I
parked the vehicle, switched on the voice recorder and
went in the office by walking. I showed Shri Gore from
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{9}
outside that Deputy Engineer shri Gadhe is present in the
office. After taking permission from Shri Gadhe we went
inside the office and sat before Shri Gadhe. Then I asked
Shri Gadhe whether he has signed on the measurement
book. He asked me whether I have brought Rs.20,000/-. I
said that arrangement of that amount is not made, but I
will bring it after sometime. Thereafter we again returned
to Anti-corruption Office. After reaching there Shri
Gawade took the voice recorder from me. So he inquired
with Shri Gore as to what has happened there. Then he
switched on the voice recorder and heard the
communication. .... .... ....
08] .... ....
09] .... .... ....
10] .............. It was also directed to me that if the accused
will demand for money I should take out the money from
my pocket and should hold it before accused. It was also
told to me that if the accused accept the money, I should
come out, remove the spects by left hand and should
indicate the team of anti-corruption as decided. It was
narrated to Panch No. 1 Shri Gore to accompany me and
to hear carefully the communication in between myself
and the accused. Panch No. 2 Shri Ingle was directed to
stay with the trap team. Then it was decided to go-to
Water Supply Department. Then myself and panchas went
ahead and the trap team was behind us.
11] After reaching there I switched on the voice-recorder,
myself and Shri Gore went in the office of Shri Gadhe. At
that place I met the accused. Accused asked whether I
have brought money. I took out the money from my right
hand and hold it before accused. After accepting the
money by accused I came out and indicated as decided.
After indication Shri Gawade and other team reached
there. ..... ....
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{10}
PW3 Kailas Gore acted as shadow Pancha. He deposed at
Exhibit 32 as under:
"In June 2012 I was working as Sectional Engineer in
Irrigation Department at Aurangabad. On 02.06.2012 I
myself and one Asaram Ingle working in our Department
were called in Anti-Corruption Bureau. We met Dy. S.P.
Shri Brahmadev Gawade there. He called us on
04.06.2012 at about 09.00 a.m. in the office. Both of us
went to Anti-Corruption Bureau on 04.06.2012 at about
09.00 a.m. and met Shri Gawade.
02] At that time Shri Gawade asked us whether we are ready
to work as a panch. We consented to work as a panch. Shri
Gawade introduced us to complainant Shri Shisodiya.
Then we asked complainant Shri Shisodiya about his
complaint. Shri Gawade handed over us the written
complaint of the complainant. The complaint told 10 us
orally and the written complaint were having same
contents. The complaint now shown to me is the same. It
bears our signature. It is already exhibited as Exh.27. The
complaint of the complainant was that he has completed
the work and prepared bill of it. Signature of accused was
required on the said bill but accused has demanded bribe
of Rs. 20,000/- for signing of the bill. So Shri Gawade
decided to verify demand of he bribe. Then Shri Gawade
informed the complainant about the use of voice recorder.
Shri Gawade also directed the complainant to go to the
office of accused at Delhi Gate alongwith me. Shri Gawade
also told me to park the vehicle near the office and switch
on the voice recorder and keep it in the pocket. He also
told us that thereafter we both of us should go to the
office of the accused. Shri Gawade also told that after
going to the office of the accused, complainant should
discuss with the accused about his work and if accused
will demand bribe, then he should tell him that the
arrangement of money is not done and he should ask
sometime for payment. I was directed to accompany the
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{11}
complainant and to carefully watch and see the discussion
in between accused and the complainant.
03] At about 09.40m. I and complainant started by the vehicle
of the complainant to Delhi Gate to reach at office of the
accused. After reaching there we parked the vehicle near
the office of the accused. Thereafter complainant switched
on the voice recorder and kept it in the pocket. We started
to go to the office of accused. Complainant showed me
Ramesh Gadhe who was sitting in the chair. Complainant
asked the accused whether we should enter the office.
Accused allowed us and so we went inside and sat in front
of the accused. Complainant gave measurement book to
the accused. Accused enquired about myself. Complainant
told that I am working as There was discussion in between
accused and his supervisor. complainant about the bill.
Complainant told accused to pay the bill. Accused asked
me to go out of office. So I waited at the side of the door
of the Cabin. I heard their communication faintly. I cannot
hear it properly. After Shri Shisodiya came out, both of us
went to the office.
04] .......
05] .......
06] ........
07] Then he directed complainant to go to the Office of
accused alongwith Shri Gore. He directed us to go to
Office of the accused after parking Car and we should talk
about the work in the office. He also told us that if the
accused will demand money, complainant should give him
money kept in the left pocket of his Shirt. It was also
directed to complainant that if the accused will demand
money, then he should come out of Office and remove his
spectacle with his left hand and indicate which can be
seen by the member of Anti-Corruption Squad. It was told
to me that I should watch carefully the communication in
between accused and complainant and I should take
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{12}
mental note of it. Another Panch Shri Ingle was directed to
remain with the Squad. Accordingly pre-trap panchanama
was prepared. Panchanama now shown to me is the same.
It bears my signature. Contents are correct. It is at Exh.34.
08] Then we started from there at about 11.30 a.m. We started
with another vehicle and remaining persons were going to
come after us. We reached near Office of the accused and
parked Car there. Then we went in the office of accused.
After going in the Office we sit in chairs in front of the
accused. Prior to sitting there complainant has switched
on the voice recorder. After sitting for 2-3 minutes accused
indicated by hand to me and asked me to go out of the
room. In those 2-3 minutes, accused was reading the
documents given to him such as Measurement Book.
While reading those documents, he asked me to go out.
Then, I went and stood at a place from where I was able to
watch both of them. When I was watching, I noticed that
after sometime complainant gave money to the accused.
After giving money complainant came out and he
indicated as agreed by removing his spectacle. I was
standing in front when the Squad came and they went into
the office of the accused.
PW4 Mahendrasing Balod, Junior Engineer in Z.P. Aurangabad,
who singed the measurement book.
PW5 Bhimrao Gawade, Deputy Superintendent at Anti
Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad, is the Investigating
Officer.
ANALYSIS
9. Though five witnesses are examined by the prosecution,
crucial evidence is of PW2-complainant and PW3-shadow
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{13}
pancha, as rest of the witnesses are panchas and Investigating
Officer. There is no challenge in the appeal as regards the
sanction is concerned. The sum and substance of prosecution
case is already dealt above. In cases of such nature, where the
complainant is an interested witness, corroboration is necessary,
so also, demand and acceptance are sine qua non. Therefore,
unless the complainant's testimony is corroborated, the
prosecution's case cannot stand. Bearing in mind such settled
legal position, evidence in the case in hand, more particularly
that of PW2-complainant and PW3-shadow pancha is minutely
examined.
10. In examination-in-chief, PW2-complainant has stated
about the tender for construction of water tank being allotted to
him, he undertook the construction work, completing it upto
36% and tendering its bill. The authorities directed him to
obtain letter of Deputy Engineer, i.e. present
respondent/accused. It is his case that, to do the needful, there
was demand of Rs.20,000/-, and therefore he approached ACB
authorities, after which ACB authorities summoned two
panchas, i.e. PW3 and another pancha.
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{14}
11. As stated above, it is to be noted that in examination-in-
chief, PW2-complainant and PW3-shadow pancha are not
lending support to each other, specifically on the point of
demand and acceptance. Learned counsel for the respondent has
specifically pointed out that, PW3-shadow pancha was not
present at the time of the alleged conversation between the
accused and the complainant on 04.06.2012. In the light of such
submission, if evidence of PW3-complainant is visited, more
particularly paragraph 17, we find complainant admitting that
when he and shadow pancha went to meet the accused, accused
had asked shadow pancha to go outside the room and
accordingly, PW3 went outside the room.
12. PW3-shadow pancha, in his very examination-in-chief
itself, in para 3 stated that, at around 9.40 a.m., he, along with
the complainant, went to the office of the accused. The
complainant switched on the voice recorder and kept it in the
pocket. Complainant, accompanied by this witness, went to the
office of the accused, who was sitting in his chair. He further
deposed that, the accused allowed them to sit in front of him.
He further stated that the accused made an inquiry about the
shadow pancha, asking who he was, and the complainant
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{15}
allegedly told him that he was working as a supervisor.
Thereafter, a discussion took place between the complainant and
the accused regarding the bill. Complainant told accused to pay
the bill. He further stated that, thereafter, the accused asked him
to go out of the office. He deposed that, he went out of the cabin
but claimed to have heard their conversation faintly, and further
candidly admitted that he could not hear it properly. Even in
paragraph 8, he has reiterated that after sitting in the cabin of
accused, accused gestured him to go out of the room and in such
2 to 3 minutes, accused was reading some documents handed
over to him, i.e. measurement book, and while reading those
documents, accused asked him to go out. So he left the place,
but further deposed that, he watched both accused and
complainant and noticed that after some time complainant came
out and he indicated, as agreed, by removing his spectacles.
While under cross, in paragraph 13, shadow pancha has
admitted that, there is no mention in the panchanama (Exhibit
33) that neither there was any discussion between the
complainant and the accused about the bill, nor that the
complainant himself spoke about the money.
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{16}
13. Therefore, in the light of above answers coming from the
evidence of complainant, and more particularly from the
substantive evidence of shadow pancha, it is clear that shadow
pancha was not present in the cabin of accused when
complainant and accused were in each other's company. Shadow
pancha candidly admitted that he heard the conversation faintly;
rather, he could not hear it properly. Therefore, the aspect of
very demand comes under the shadow of doubt. On the sole
count of establishing demand, the case of prosecution comes
under the shadow of doubt.
14. Though, by way of prosecution, the investigating agency
handed over a tape recorder to record conversation of demand ,
the shadow panch has not supported the case, answering that he
does not know as to what are the contents of the recording.
Even the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act,
required for admitting electronic records as evidence, has not
been placed on record. Therefore, on this count as well, the
prosecution has suffered a severe blow.
15. To sum up, here, there is no convincing evidence on the
point of demand. Therefore, the case of prosecution was rightly
disbelieved by the learned trial Judge. The view taken by the
14-18-CRIAPEAL.(Jt.)odt
{17}
learned Trial Judge cannot be faulted at as the prosecution
failed to discharge the burden of proving its case beyond
reasonable doubt. There being no merit in the appeal, it requires
to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following
order:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE,
JUDGE
S P Rane
