Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Subhash Madhavrao Kale on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31807
{1} ALS 144 OF 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 144 OF 2018
The State of Maharashtra
Through : Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. ....Applicant
Versus
Subhash Madhavrao Kale
Age: 57 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Chandrabhaga Niwas, Shrirampur,
Behind Hotel Jatra, Near Telephone Officer,
Aadgaon Shivar, Nashik. .....Respondent
(Ori. Accused)
.....
APP for Applicant : Ms.P.V. Diggikar
Advocate for Respondent : Ms.Monica Bagwe h/f.
Mr. C.P. Sengaonkar
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 19 NOVEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 20 NOVEMBER, 2025
ORDER :
1. Vide instant application, State is seeking leave of this court to
question judgment and order dated 20-03-2018 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Special Case No.8 of 2011
thereby acquitting present respondent for offence under Sections 7,
13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
{2} ALS 144 OF 2018
2. Learned APP pointed out that, ACB authorities received
complaint against present respondent, who was working as Assistant
Public Prosecutor in the Court of Sangamner. That, he had
demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- to favour the complainant in the Court
proceedings. That, on receipt of complaint to that extent, Anti
Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities had planned and laid trap.
Learned APP further pointed out that, complainant and independent
pancha witness were party to the demand verification. That,
thereafter, on getting confirmed about demand, trap was laid. That,
there is both demand as well as acceptance by the respondent.
3. That, witnesses like PW1 Raju, complainant and PW2 Sanjeev,
shadow pancha are crucial witnesses and they have remained
consistent on such aspects. That, money was also accepted and kept
in a diary after which trap was executed. Thus, according to her,
offence was complete and therefore, accused was chargesheeted and
tried.
4. Learned APP pointed out that, witnesses like PW1
complainant, PW2 shadow pancha, and PW4 Investigating Officer are
consistent on the aspects of demand as well as acceptance.
{3} ALS 144 OF 2018
According to her, even sanction was obtained which was on due
application of mind.
Thus, according to her, a full proof case was made out, but
learned trial Court failed to consider and appreciate such case and
erred in acquitting accused by holding that witnesses are not
consistent and aspects of demand and acceptance are not proved.
Lastly, she submitted that, state has a good case on merits and hence
she urges for leave.
5. Countering above submissions, learned counsel for respondent
pointed out that prosecution has miserably failed in bringing home
the charges. According to her, at the outset, sanction itself was not
valid. That, in view of pay scale of accused, there was need for
approval of the Chief Minister, but here, sanction is accorded by
officer of rank of Joint Secretary, Home Department of Government
of Maharashtra that too without any note of approval from Chief
Minister's Office and as such, sanction itself was not valid. Further
according to her, there is non-application of mind to the material
available before according sanction. As regards to merits of the case
is concerned, she would submit that there was no exercise of demand
verification and improvised version was given before the Court and
{4} ALS 144 OF 2018
the Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, has admitted to
that extent. She would further point out that, as regards to
acceptance is concerned, according to prosecution witnesses, tainted
currency was found in the diary kept on the table of accused whereas
according to the Investigating Officer, amount was kept beneath the
papers in a diary and as such there is contradiction and inconsistency,
which primarily weighed learned trial court in disbelieving the case
of prosecution.
According to her, on complete appreciation of evidence, when
no case was made out on crucial points of demand, acceptance and
sanction, learned trial Court has committed no error in acquitting the
accused.
6. Heard. Perused the papers. Here, present respondent was
chargersheeted and tried vide Special Case no.8 of 2011 on the
premise of committing offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Sum and substance of the proseuction launched was that,
accused was working as Assistant Public Prosecutor in Court of law
i.e. at Sangamner Court. He was assigned R.T.C. No.217 of 2006.
{5} ALS 144 OF 2018
One Kishor @ Surendra had lodged report resulting into
investigation and filing of chargesheet. It is alleged that, one Raju
Adhav used to attend the Court and while evidence of one Ashok
Gaikwad was recorded, it is alleged that accused accepted bribe of
Rs.200/- from him. Similarly on 07-05-2010, when evidence of
Mariyabai and Marthabai was recorded, at that time, accused
allegedly demanded Rs.500/-, but negotiated and brought down to
Rs.300/-. For favouring complainant in getting decision, it is alleged
that, accused demanded Rs.3,000/- and finally negotiated and
brought down the amount to Rs.1,000/-. Report to that extent exh.P-
19 was lodged resulting into investigation, laying of trap,
apprehending accused and chargesheeting accused.
7. Prosecution seems to have adduced evidence of PW1 Raju
Adhav, complainant, PW2 Sanjeev, shadow pancha, PW3
Ramchandra Sankhe, Sanctioning Authority, PW4 Jayant Patil (PI),
Investigating Officer, PW5 Prakash Sahane, Deputy Superintendent of
Police, PW6 Ramnath Nehe, Surveyor and PW7 Vijay Dhopavkar,
Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Here, as pointed out it is emerging that very Investigating
Officer has admitted that, he did not undertake the exercise of
{6} ALS 144 OF 2018
verification of demand. Therefore, mandatory exercise for
ascertaining whether there was actual demand and whether further
steps are necessary, itself is not carried out.
8. As pointed out by learned counsel for respondent, complainant
has deposed that, on 14-06-2010, he had approached accused for
recording evidence of Shantabai and at that time, his step brother
namely Ashok Gaikwad was accompanying him and in his presence,
there was said to be demand of Rs.3,000/- and finally accused had
brought down the figure to Rs.1,000/-. However, as pointed out,
Ashok Gaikwad, who was a crucial witness and who could have lend
support to complainant's version is surprisingly not examined.
9. According to complainant and shadow pancha, when they
approached accused, after questioning whether amount has been
brought, complainant alleged that he was directed to keep the
currency inside the diary kept on table. Such testimony itself shows
that there is no acceptance and rather it is case of planting.
10. Learned counsel for respondent has pointed out that, the
Investigating Officer failed to seize the very diary in which currency
{7} ALS 144 OF 2018
was allegedly kept. From the judgment sought to be impugned
herein, there is specific finding of the learned trial Court in
paragraph 14 that, there is non-seizure of the diary. Therefore, very
crucial piece of evidence has not been gathered by the Investigating
Officer.
11. Another distinct feature, as pointed by learned counsel
respondent, is that here sanction is accorded by PW3 Ramchandra
Sankhe, who claims to be Joint Secretary, Home Department of
Government of Maharashtra, but this witness in cross-examination
has admitted that accused fell in the pay scale of Rs.10,750/- and
above and therefore, approval of Chief Minister for sanction to
prosecute was necessary. Even defence placed on record exh.66
issued by the Office of Assistant Director and Public prosecutor,
Ahmednagar. Notification exh.63, which is also placed on record,
goes to shows that for granting sanction, approval of Chief Minister is
necessary, but there is no material before the trial Court showing that
any such exercise of seeking approval from Chief Minister or his
office, was ever obtained. Therefore, for above reasons, even issue of
sanction comes under shadow of doubt.
{8} ALS 144 OF 2018
12. Therefore, in the light of above quality of evidence on record,
it cannot be accepted that prosecution has a good case on merits and
that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its
correct perspective and erred in acquitting the accused. Therefore,
no case being made on merits, leave is refused. Hence, following
order :
ORDER
Application for Leave to Appeal by State is rejected.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
