Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Dattatraya Nana Salunke And Anr on 14 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31203
APEAL-264-2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2017
The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant
Versus
1. Dattatraya Nana Salunke,
Age: 41 years, Occp.: Service,
As Awwapl Karkoon, Sanjay Gandhi Yojna,
Additional Charge - Circle Officer,
Kolegaon, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar
R/o Shivajinagar, Tq. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Swapnil Pradip Holkar,
Age: 27 years, Occp.: Service,
Kamgar Talathi, Bhangaon,
Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar
R/o. Behind Mahadji Shinde Vidyalaya,
Shrigonda, Tq. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents
***
• Mr. P. P. Dawalkar, APP for the Appellant/State
• Mr. S. M. A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1
• Mr. T. S. Lodhe, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 11, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : NOVEMBER 14, 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Instant appeal is by State on account of acquittal of present
Respondent by learned Special ACB Court, Ahmednagar in ACB Case No.
15/2014 acquitting present Respondents from charges under Sections 7, 12,
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Umesh PAGE 1 OF 10
APEAL-264-2017.odt
2. Facts in brief giving rise to prosecution is as under:
PW - 2 Complainant ran brick kiln. On 17.07.2014 both
accused, who are revenue officers, allegedly paid visit to it, carried out
measurement of the earth/soil and telephoned complainant, who was at
Arangaon, that there is excess earth noticed to be stored and that he would
be required to pay fine of Rs. 1,60,000/-. According to prosecution,
complainant questioned regarding levying of fine and at that time, it is
alleged that accused no.2, who had made telephone call, told complainant
that he will require to give Rs. 80,000/- for compromising the matter. As PW
1 was not interested in paying bribe, he lodged report at Exh. 26, on the
basis of which ACB planned trap and on completion of investigation, charge-
sheeted the accused made to face trial.
3. In Trial Court prosecution is rested on documentary evidence
and as well as testimony of four witnesses i.e. PW 1- Sanctioning Authority;
PW 2 - Complainant, PW - 3 Shadow Panch, PW 4 - Investigating Officer.
4. After hearing both sides and on appreciating and analyzing the
evidence, learned Trial Court reached to a finding that prosecution has
failed to bring home the charges and thereby acquitted the accused.
Precisely, said judgment and order of acquittal is now taken exception by
filing instant appeal.
Umesh PAGE 2 OF 10
APEAL-264-2017.odt
SUBMISSIONS
5. Learned APP apprised this Court about the story of prosecution
and would also take this Court to the testimony of PW 2 and PW 3, who,
according to him, are complainant as well as shadow panch. He pointed out
that these both witnesses have testified about demand verification being
initially got done and subsequently trap being set and thereafter they both
unanimously speak about both accused available in the office. That, both
accused in presence of both these witnesses had initially carried out
discussion. He pointed out that initially accused no. 1 apart from making
gestures by rubbing his thumb to the index finger asked about the money
and when it was to be paid by complainant, he was directed to pay it to
accused no.2. That, amount was accepted by accused no. 2 and he kept it
on the table and thereafter pre-determined signal was laid and both accused
were apprehended. Thus, according to learned APP, there is both demand as
well as acceptance, however, same has not been correctly appreciated by
learned trial court.
Learned APP further submitted that investigating machinery has
applied for sanction to PW 1 who is appointing as well as reporting
authority of both accused and such authority had studied the investigation
papers and had thereafter accorded sanction. Such authority is also
examined. That, investigating officer who carried out investigation has also
Umesh PAGE 3 OF 10
APEAL-264-2017.odt
narrated the sequence of events since complaint till filing charge-sheet but
the same has not been considered by trial judge.
Learned APP would pointed out that accused were caught red
handed. However, merely by commenting on the conduct of the accused,
prosecution is disbelieved. There was both pre-trap panchnama a well as
post trap panchnama and prosecution witnesses have stuck to the story of
prosecution throughout. There was no need to doubt the credibility of such
evidence and therefore, learned APP urges to interfere by allowing the
appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.
6. In answer to above, learned counsel for accused would submit
that prosecution failed to bring home charges. According to him, alleged
demand was on telephone but no CDR has been gathered. Secondly,
according to him, when panchnama of excess earth being possessed then
that was already forwarded to the higher authority, and it being duly
informed to the complainant, there was no question of putting any demand.
He pointed out that amount which is referred to by the witnesses pertains to
the fine of holding excess earth. That, challan to that extent has already
been drawn but it was snatched by complainant. That, immediately after the
episode of alleged trap, both accused had tendered say Exhs. 36 and 37.
That, shadow panch in his cross has admitted regarding above stand taken
by accused. Moreover, according to them, alleged demand is by gestures.
Umesh PAGE 4 OF 10
APEAL-264-2017.odt
PW 2 and 3 are not consistent on alleged episode of demand on the day of
trial. He pointed out that there are material omissions and as such, evidence
of PW 2 and 3 is unworthy of credence.
7. He further pointed out that sanctioning authority has failed to
apply its mind and that surprisingly said sanction order carries signatures of
entire staff when only sanctioning authority was expected to accord sanction
by causing signature. For all above reasons, he urges to dismiss the appeal
for want of evidence.
8. In the light of above submissions, evidence on record is re-
appreciated. PW 1 seems to be sanctioning authority. PW 2 seems to be
complainant and PW 3 seems to be shadow panch, whereas PW 4 seems to
be investigating officer. In the light of nature of accusations, evidence of PW
2 and 3 assumes significances and, therefore, the same is meticulously
analyzed.
PW 2 complainant, who is examined at Exh. 25, has testified
that he runs a brick kiln and according to him, while he was at Arangaon,
both accused, who had come to visit his brick kiln, had carried out weight
and measurement of the earth available there and it is his testimony that
accused no. 2 made him telephone call and informed about 1700-1800
excess brass earth/soil and further informed about requirement of fine to be
paid to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/-. He claims questioning accused no. 2 and
Umesh PAGE 5 OF 10
APEAL-264-2017.odt
thereafter it is his case that for compromise Rs. 80,000/- were demanded
and therefore, he lodged report Exh. 26. He also testified about procedure of
trap being explained to him as well as PW 3 shadow panch and they both
also proceeding for pre trap verification. According to him, at that time,
initially accused no. 2 was approached and later on, accused no.1 arrived,
they both had discussion and according to him, accused no. 2 had informed
that accused no.1 instructed him to take merely Rs. 80,000/- instead of Rs.
1,25,000/- as is taken from others and, therefore, they went back to ACB
office.
9. He further submitted that on the day of trap when he and
panch visited the office of accused both of them were present and after
greeting them, accused no. 1 allegedly rubbed his thumb to the index finger
and made inquiry about the money and accused no.1 pointed to accused no.
2 and he too made similar gesture after which currency was handed over to
accused no. 2, who accepted it and kept on table followed by signal given by
complainant to raiding party and both accused being apprehended.
While under cross, in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 there are questions
pertaining to the year since when brick kiln was being run, whether royalty
was paid and whether any previous panchnama was drawn in the year
2013-2014. In paragraph 11 he has denied any notice being issued to him to
pay/deposit of royalty to the tune of Rs. 1,01,840/-. He denied both accused
Umesh PAGE 6 OF 10
APEAL-264-2017.odt
coming and serving notice on 18.07.2014 and further answered that he was
not present on the spot but to further question answer is that his servant
refused to accept notice. Such answer goes to show that PW 2 was served
with notice. In paragraph 13 of the cross he has admitted about accused no.
1 informing about video shooting of the panchnama to be conducted in
presence of police patil and said video being forwarded to the Collector on
whats app. Therefore, question arises is whether when once panchnama is
complete and it is forwarded to the higher authority, where is the question
of accused persons putting up demand by way of bribe.
10. In paragraph 16 of the cross material omissions are brought in
his statement as well as in complaint regarding informing ACB officer about
accused no. 2 making him phone call and informing about 1700-1800 brass
earth found and requirement of fine of Rs. 1,60,000/- required to be paid.
He also admitted that he denied such quantity of earth available and further
questioning as to how fine of Rs. 1,60,000/- could be levied.
11. He also admitted that there is material omission about accused
saying to him that Rs.80,000/- would be required for compromising the
matter. In paragraph 17 of the cross this witness has admitted that he met
accused, he himself on his own accord had told them about bringing
Rs.80,000/- i.e. even prior to the demand. I.O. has admitted that such above
text is not stated by complainant and as such, omissions stands proved.
Umesh PAGE 7 OF 10
APEAL-264-2017.odt
12. PW 3 is also a crucial witness and it is only when this witness
corroborates complainant in cases of such nature, case of prosecution
becomes worthy of credence. PW 3 is examined at Exh. 29 and he also
testified about being called to act as panch, being introduced to
complainant, confronted with complaint Exh. 26 and he signing over it. He
also deposed about accompanying PW 2 for panchnama of verification by
carrying voice recorder. To that extent, he has deposed it in paragraph 5.
Events of the day of the trap are narrated by him that after complainant
greeted both accused discussion took place between them about Rs.80,000/-
and that complainant himself informed that he is present as per instructions
even yesterday and he deposed about accused no. 1 making gestures by
rubbing his thumb over his index finger and thereafter complainant
removing the currency and holding it in his right hand but at that time
accused no.1 instructed him to give the same to accused no. 2 who accepted
it and then kept it on the table.
As regards to above events are concerned, PW 2 and PW 3 are
not consistent as PW 2 had deposed that after accused no. 1 made gestures
by rubbing thumb over his index finger at that time itself he pointed
towards accused no. 2 and directed complainant to pay him the amount,
whereas PW 3, as stated above, has not stated about it and has rather stated
that after accused no. 1 made gesture at that time itself complainant took
Umesh PAGE 8 OF 10
APEAL-264-2017.odt
out the money and after it was offered he was directed to accused no. 2.
Admittedly, currency was seized from the table. The events narrated by PW
2 and 3 show that there were gestures made and there is no demand.
Prosecution witnesses none other than complainant himself has admitted
that on the day of trap there was no demand by any of the accused. As
stated above, evidence of PW 2 and 3 is carrying material omissions. PW 3
in his cross has admitted that both accused gave explanation Exhibit 36 and
37 regarding challan of Rs.80,000/- being paid and it being snatched by
complainant from the hands of accused no. 2. Therefore, his testimony
probablises of defence that amount accepted that day was towards fine vide
challan and not towards bribe.
13. Remaining two witnesses are sanctioning authority and I.O. As
pointed out, sanctioning authority has admitted that apart from his own
signature there are signatures of other staff assisting him that too on very
sanctioning order. I.O. has also admitted in cross in paragraph 19 that he did
not conduct investigation regarding preparation of challan. Thus, there is
serious lapse on the part of investigating machinery in spite of specific say of
accused to that extent. Even in paragraph 21 of the cross I.O. has admitted
that in the complaint PW 2 had not stated about phone call received from
accused no. 2 informing about excess quantity of earth being found at the
brick kiln and requirement of fine to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/- to be paid
Umesh PAGE 9 OF 10
APEAL-264-2017.odt
and on his questioning, he was offered to pay Rs. 80,000/- for
compromising the matter.
14. As pointed out, though pre trap verification panchnama was
drawn by allegedly recording voice, 65(b) certificates are not made part of
the charge-sheet and are not before the Court.
15. With above quality of evidence, it cannot be said that
prosecution his discharges its burden of proving its case beyond reasonable
doubt.
16. After considering the impugned judgment, this Court is more
than convinced that entire evidence has been correctly appreciated. Relevant
provisions and requirements of the Corruption Act are dealt with and
discussed by learned Trial Court. Even settled law has been taken into
account before according acquittal. There is no merit in the Appeal. Hence,
appeal stands dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh PAGE 10 OF 10
