Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Sunita Sudamrao Pophale on 18 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31572
ALS-116-2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 116 OF 2025
The State of Maharashtra,
Through : Police Inspector,
City Chowk Police Station,
Aurangabad. ... Appellant
Versus
Sunita Sudamrao Pophale,
Age : 52 years, Occu: Service,
(Maintenance Surveyor)
R/o. Flat No. 137, Parijatnagar,
N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ... Respondent
[Orig. Accused]
.....
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for the Applicant-State
Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Respondent
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 14.11.2025
Pronounced on : 18.11.2025
ORDER :
1. Vide instant application, the State is seeking leave of this Court
to allow it to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal
dated 17.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (A.C.B.), (Court
No.11), Aurangabad in Special Case (A.C.B.) NO. 36 of 2018, thereby
acquitting the respondent from offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act.
ALS-116-2025
2. Learned APP submitted that PW2 complainant had approached
respondent, who worked in City Survey Office, for issuance of PR
Card, i.e. after demise of her mother, for incorporating names of
herself as well as her sister. That, for the said purpose, respondent
demanded Rs.3,000/- bribe and as PW2 was not willing to pay bribe,
she had approached ACB authorities and had lodged report.
3. Learned APP pointed out that after receipt of report, the
Investigating Officer carried out demand verification by use of voice
recorder and its panchanama was drawn in presence of shadow
pancha. He further submitted that both, complainant and shadow
pancha, had together been to the office of accused and that time also,
as there was demand, tainted currency was handed over and it was
accepted. Thus, according to learned APP, there is both, demand as
well as acceptance. He further submitted that after obtaining
sanction, prosecution was launched.
4. Therefore, according to learned APP, all required formalities
were complied. However, according to learned APP, learned trial
court misconstrued the evidence as well as legal position and
acquitted the accused holding that there is variance in the statements
ALS-116-2025
of complainant and shadow pancha and secondly, sanction is invalid,
as the work for which bribe was allegedly sought, was already over.
Learned APP emphasizes that such considerations for acquittal are
unwarranted in the light of availability of overwhelming evidence of
complainant, shadow pancha and Investigating Officer. Thus, learned
APP urges to allow the application and grant of leave to file appeal.
5. In answer to above, learned counsel Mr. Salunke for the
respondent would submit that prosecution has miserably failed to
establish the charges. He pointed out that witnesses PW2 and PW3
are not consistent in spite of claiming to be together. He pointed out
that, Investigating Officer has deposed about the tainted currency to
be found in the drawer. Therefore, there was no acceptance. He
further pointed out that even shadow pancha was permitted to study
the papers before stepping into the witness box. That, even sanction
was invalid and therefore, on several counts, as the case of
prosecution had come under shadow of doubt, according to him,
there is no error on the part of the trial court in acquitting the
accused and he urges to refuse leave.
6. After considering the above submissions and on going through
the papers, it seems that mother of PW2 had a house in her name and
ALS-116-2025
after her demise, PW2 and her sister decided to enter their names in
the property card and as such, on 21.05.2018, PW2 had approached
the City Survey office. It is her testimony at Exhibit 28 that, accused
demanded bribe for issuing PR card and therefore, she lodged report
with ACB authorities. She further deposed about demand verification
being done and subsequently, while she and shadow pancha PW3
went to the office of accuse, at that time, accused demanded amount
and also accepted the same in her hand and on request of PW2,
accused counted the cash and then kept it in the drawer. As pointed
out by learned counsel for the respondent, PW3, regarding above
episode, has deposed in his evidence at Exhibit 37 that, after accused
asked about money, when complainant was handing over the cash to
the accused, the accused instructed complainant to put the amount in
the drawer of the table and accordingly, complainant herself kept the
cash in the drawer. Therefore, above part of the testimony of PW2
and PW3 is not consistent and is rather contrary. The question of very
acceptance has come under the shadow of doubt for above reasons.
7. As submitted, it is also noticed that the PR card was already
ready and names of PW2 and her sister were already incorporated
prior to lodgment of complaint. Both, Investigating Officer as well as
sanctioning authority, admitted in cross to that extent. Therefore,
ALS-116-2025
question of subsequent demand has also cropped up. Further, as
pointed out, witness PW3 has stated that he was allowed to study the
papers before stepping into the witness box.
8. For all above reasons, case of prosecution has indeed been
rendered doubtful. By applying the principles to be followed while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal, for above reasons and
finding no merits in the application, the following order is passed :
ORDER
I. Leave is refused.
II. The application is dismissed.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
