Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Prabhu Saluba Pungle on 13 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:30986
{1} ALS 57 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 57 OF 2020
The State of Maharashtra
Through : Bhokardan Police Station, Dist.Jalna. ....Applicant
Versus
Prabhu Saluba Pungle
Age: 47 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. : Vita No.1, Tq.Bhokardan, Dist.Jalna. .....Respondent
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.P.P. Dawalkar
Advocate for Respondent : Mr.P.A.Bhosle
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 11 NOVEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 13 NOVEMBER, 2025
ORDER :
1. By way of instant application, State is intending to question
judgment and order dated 16-12-2019, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-3, Jalna in Special Case (ACB) No.9 of 2013 by which
present respondent came to be acquitted.
2. Learned APP would point out that accused respondent, who
was working as a Clerk in Tahsil Office, Bhokardan, had demanded
bribe from PW1 complainant for granting honorarium towards
Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. Report to that extent was received
{2} ALS 57 OF 2020
by ACB authorities, who have planned and arranged the trap and
shadow pancha was also arranged and both complainant and shadow
pancha were made aware of procedure of trap. He submitted that
accordingly PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha together had
been to the Tahsil Office. That, amount was demanded and it was
also accepted by the accused. Therefore, sine qua non for attracting
charges was very much available on record and evidence. However,
learned trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the same and
acquitted the accused without assigning sound reasons. That, there
is a good case on merits in appeal and therefore, learned APP seeks
leave to file appeal.
3. In answer to above, learned counsel for respondent pointed
out that prosecution has miserably failed to establish whether there
was demand and acceptance. He pointed out that in fact, PW1
complainant and PW2 shadow pancha both have consistently
deposed before the Court that amount paid was towards credit owed
by one Gayabai from accused. That, said Gayabai is not examined.
That, in cross-examination, complainant has also admitted that
amount demanded or handed over was towards hand-loan.
Learned counsel took this Court through the observations of
{3} ALS 57 OF 2020
the learned trial Court in paragraph nos.16, 17 and 18 of judgment
and supports the findings and therefore, he urges to refuse leave.
4. After considering the above submissions and on going through
the record, here it is emerging that PW1 complainant, who is
examined at exh.19, had filed complaint exh.20 with ACB
authorities. She has deposed before the Court that she had applied
for monthly honorarium under the Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana
at Tahsil Office, Bhokardan. According to her, she tendered relevant
documents with the application. That, her application was also
sanctioned, however, accused demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- for
depositing monthly honorarium in her bank account and as she was
not willing to pay bribe, she approached ACB authorities and filed
complaint exh.20. She further deposed that initially, she gave oral
complaint and later on it was got typed by ACB officer. She further
testified that, ACB officer also verified demand of bribe by accused
and accordingly, voice recording was decided to be done in the
mobile handset of complainant. However, there being no such
facility in her mobile handset, it is her testimony that SIM card was
removed from her mobile handset and the same was put in mobile
handset of Police Constable and then, she made call to accused from
{4} ALS 57 OF 2020
the said mobile handset and told him that, "amount is ready and
whether it is to be brought at Bhokardan and accused asked her to
come at Bhokardan". Therefore, above testimony as regards
verification of demand is concerned, it is apparent that before
accused made any demand, complainant herself has offered to pay
and she has accordingly informed accused that she is willing to pay.
Therefore, atleast at the stage of verification, demand part is missing.
PW2 shadow pancha also at exh.23 has deposed to this extent.
Therefore, the very crucial part i.e. demand is missing from the case.
5. Case put-forth by the respondent accused is that amount
demanded was the amount owed by one Gayabai and that was
directed to be paid. On these lines, if evidence of PW1 complainant
as well as PW2 shadow pancha is put to scrutiny, it appears that in
evidence of complainant, in paragraph 7, complainant has testified
that she and shadow pancha had been to Tahsil Office and at that
time, Gayabai was present there. When she came with complainant
to Tahsil Office, at that time, Gayabai told complainant that she had
taken Rs.1,000/- from accused to open bank account and the said
amount is to be returned to the accused. Accordingly, complainant
told Gayabai to tell accused that she had given Rs.1,000/- herself
(complainant) and that complainant will give said amount to
{5} ALS 57 OF 2020
accused.
Even to above extent, PW2 shadow pancha has admitted in
cross-examination in paragraph 6 that on 12-12-2012, when she was
in the company of complainant at Tahsil Office, Bhokardan, one
Gayabai Modhekar was also present there and Gayabai told that she
wants to pay Rs.1,000/- to accused. PW2 shadow pancha had
admitted in cross-examination that at that time, complainant told
Gayabai that she should not pay single pai to accused rather she
would pay the said amount and accordingly, Gayabai given Rs.500/-
to complainant and it is the same currency, which is shown before the
Court.
Therefore, with such quality of evidence, no fault can be found
on the part of the learned trial Judge in disbelieving the case of
prosecution about alleged gratification being demanded. On the
contrary, evidence of PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha
suggest some hand-loan transaction with accused. Apart from above
quality of evidence, as pointed out, even conversation, which was
allegedly recorded in the mobile handset of a Police Constable, is not
before the Court. Consequently, for the more reason, case of
prosecution was weak on several counts. No case being made out on
merits to grant leave, application for leave to file appeal deserves to
{6} ALS 57 OF 2020
be rejected. Hence, following order :
ORDER
Application for leave to appeal by State is rejected.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
