Bombay High Court
Sharad S/O. Namdeorao Targe vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Deputy ... on 27 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13046
1/19 apeal-347-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2018
Sharad S/o Namdeorao Targe,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Service
R/o Gopal Nagar, Chandrapur,
Tahsil & District Chandrapur ... Appellant.
// VERSUS //
State of Maharashtra,
through Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Chandrapur, District Chandrapur ... Respondent
Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.S. Hulke, Addl.P.P. for the respondent/State
CORAM : NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.
Reserved on : 21st November, 2025.
Pronounced on : 27th November, 2025.
JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred the present appeal being
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Special ACB Case No.
5 of 2009, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Sknair
2/19 apeal-347-18.odt
("PC Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/-, in default whereof to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a further period of three months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant,
Shilratan Gongale, had participated as a candidate in the police
recruitment process at the Chandrapur Police Headquarters. He was
declared unfit on account of chest measurement. On 30.05.2006, while
the recruitment process was in progress, the Superintendent of Police,
Chandrapur had instructed the S.P./Dy.S.P., ACB, Nagpur to keep
clandestine surveillance to prevent any misuse of official position.
Pursuant to the communication dated 29.05.2006, officers of the ACB,
Chandrapur commenced discreet vigilance.
It is the prosecution case that during this period, the accused
contacted the complainant, who was a rejected candidate, and assured
him that he could secure his selection. When questioned, the accused
allegedly informed the complainant that the then S.P., Chandrapur, one
Ravindra Kadam, was close to him and though the S.P. did not directly
accept money, he accepted the same through the accused. The ACB
Sknair
3/19 apeal-347-18.odt
allegedly called the complainant to their office, obtained his confidence,
and recorded his statement to that effect.
3. A verification was thereafter planned. Two panch witnesses,
Maroti Nikhare and Bhushan Gajpure, were called from the office of the
Conservator of Forests, Upper Division, Chandrapur. After being
apprised of the purpose and giving their consent, the complainant was
deputed along with panch No.1 Maroti Nikhare, who was instructed to
introduce himself as the father of a rejected candidate named Gedam. The
complainant contacted the accused on mobile phone. The accused
initially directed them to a canteen where he was said to be having a meal,
but he was not found. Upon subsequent calls, he directed them first to the
Tahsil Office and thereafter to wait near the Traffic Office.
While they were waiting, a person arrived on a motorcycle, whom
the complainant identified as the one deputed to receive the bribe
amount. This person allegedly signaled the complainant, made inquiries
with panch No.1, and demanded 50% of the agreed amount of
₹1,10,000/-, instructing them to bring the same on the following day at
the Police Headquarters ground, Chandrapur. On this basis, a verification
Sknair
4/19 apeal-347-18.odt
panchanama was drawn and signed by the panchas and the ACB Officer,
Shri Todase. A trap was accordingly arranged for the next day.
4. On the following day, the complainant and the panchas
assembled. It was decided that the complainant would carry ₹10,000/-
along with blank papers shaped like currency notes. A demonstration of
phenolphthalein powder was conducted. Necessary instructions were
issued, and a pre-trap panchanama was drawn. At about 12.30 p.m., the
complainant and panch No.1 proceeded towards the spot near the
footpath at the Police Headquarters, while the rest of the trap party waited
concealed nearby.
After about half an hour, both the complainant and panch No.1
returned and reported that the trap had failed. On inquiry, it was
informed that the complainant had gone to a telephone booth to contact
the accused, keeping the panch waiting. Upon return, he informed the
panch that the accused had expressed suspicion regarding the presence of
panch No.1, resulting in the aborting of the trap.
5. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer lodged a complaint
(Exh.46) after a delay of nearly six months, on 08.12.2006, allegedly
Sknair
5/19 apeal-347-18.odt
pursuant to directions received during an office visit from the superior
officer, late Shri Hemant Karkare. Sanction was subsequently obtained.
Statements of the complainant, the panchas (11.12.2006), and
supplementary statements of Ravindra Kadam and the then S.P.,
Chandrapur (both recorded on 14.11.2007) were taken. The charge-sheet
came to be filed on 17.03.2009.
6. Charge (Exh.13) for the offence punishable under Section 7
of the PC Act was framed by the learned Special Judge on 19.04.2012.
The accused pleaded not guilty (Exh.14) and claimed to be tried. The
prosecution examined four witnesses: P.W.1 Shilratan Gongale
(complainant), P.W.2 Maroti Nikhare (panch), P.W.3 ACP Chhering
Dorje, and P.W.4 Shri Shriram Todase, retired Dy.S.P. Upon closure of
prosecution evidence (Exh.60), the statement of the accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. (Exh.62) was recorded, wherein he denied all
incriminating circumstances.
7. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, held that
the prosecution had proved that the accused attempted to obtain and
agreed to accept illegal gratification for showing official favour. Invoking
Sknair
6/19 apeal-347-18.odt
Explanation (e) to Section 7 of the PC Act, the trial Court held that the
accused, being a public servant, induced the informant to believe that he
had influence in matters of recruitment. It thus concluded that the
offence under Section 7 stood proved, answered the relevant point for
determination in the affirmative, and convicted the accused accordingly.
Hence, the present appeal.
8. Heard Mr. Shirpurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, and
Mr. Hulke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the
complainant (PW-1) has categorically deposed that the accused was not
known to him prior to the alleged incident. It is submitted that, as per the
complainant's testimony, the person who had approached him had
introduced himself as "Sharad Targe," and during his cross-examination
by the learned APP, the complainant specifically stated that the appellant
present before the Court was not the person who had met him or
demanded money. Despite such unequivocal evidence, the trial Court
failed to record any finding regarding the identity of the accused. It is
Sknair
7/19 apeal-347-18.odt
argued that no Test Identification Parade was conducted, although the
complainant was admittedly unfamiliar with the accused, thereby
rendering the prosecution case doubtful. According to the appellant,
some other person may have misused his name, and the trial Court failed
to examine this crucial aspect in its proper perspective.
Learned Counsel further submits that the appellant had no role
whatsoever in the recruitment process in question, which is an admitted
position on record. PW-3 and PW-4 have also acknowledged these facts
during their depositions. It is urged that the incident allegedly occurred
on 31.05.2006, whereas the complaint came to be lodged only on
08.12.2006, indicating false implication. It is further contended that the
sanctioning authority did not apply its mind while granting sanction
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the primary
submission pressed into service is that the complainant himself has
exonerated the appellant by stating before the trial Court that he was not
the person involved in the alleged crime, thereby vitiating the conviction.
In support of his contention he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in (i) B. Jayraj Vs. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55, (ii)
Sknair
8/19 apeal-347-18.odt
Satish Kumar Kajal Vs. State Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 SCC
Online Bom 465 and (iii) Judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.
447/2012 Bhaurao Chauhan Vs. State of Maharashtra.
10. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submits that in view of the complainant's categorical deposition before
the trial Court that the appellant was not the person who demanded bribe
from him, there remains no material to connect the appellant with the
alleged offence. The learned Addl.P.P. fairly states that, in light of such
testimony, no substantive argument can be advanced to sustain the
appellant's conviction.
11. Before adverting to the aforesaid submissions, it is necessary
to first undertake a careful examination of the evidence placed on record
by the prosecution. The appreciation of such evidence is essential for
determining whether the foundational facts alleged by the prosecution
stand established, and whether the subsequent submissions advanced by
the learned Counsel can be tested against a reliable evidentiary
framework. It is only after such scrutiny that the court can appropriately
evaluate the rival contentions and arrive at a just and reasoned conclusion.
Sknair
9/19 apeal-347-18.odt
12. PW-1 Shilratan Mohan Gongle, the informant on whose
alleged information the entire trap proceedings originated, specifically
stated in his examination-in-chief that:
"the accused present in the Court is not the person who met me outside
the police headquarters, Chandrapur" and
"the person who told his name as Sharad Targe and who met me on the
next day with Nikhare is not the accused present in the Court."
In cross-examination by the A.P.P., PW-1 categorically denied the
suggestion that the accused was the same person who approached him or
disclosed his name as Sharad Targe. The witness further denied that he
was unable to identify the real culprit due to lapse of time and also denied
having compromised the matter. This failure of identification by the very
informant strikes at the root of the prosecution case.
13. Absence of Independent Corroboration from Panch Witness
(PW-2) : Panch Witness PW-2, Maroti Nikhare, made several admissions
in cross-examination that weaken the prosecution version: No audio-
recording of conversation between PW-1 and the alleged person was done
Sknair
10/19 apeal-347-18.odt
either during verification or trap. He did not hear the conversation on the
phone and could not say what was spoken from the other side. Call
records of PW-1's mobile phone were never checked in his presence. He
admitted inability to identify any person connected with the ACB or the
accused after the lapse of years. His statement was recorded 15-20 days
after the incident, not immediately. These admissions show that the
alleged demand attributed to the accused was not independently verified
and the evidentiary value of PW-2's testimony is severely diminished.
14. Contradictions Between PW-1 and PW-2 on Material
Aspects: There exist significant inconsistencies between PW-1 and PW-2
regarding: the place of alleged meetings, the sequence of events, the
person who initiated conversations, and the exact words allegedly spoken
by the person named "Sharad Targe". PW-1 admits that many facts
deposed in court were not mentioned in his original statement, including
the name of the alleged friend "Gedam," the details of the conversation
with the accused, and the instructions received from the ACB. These
contradictions render the prosecution's narrative doubtful.
Sknair
11/19 apeal-347-18.odt
15. Absence of Test Identification Parade: PW-4 (Investigating
Officer) admitted in cross-examination that: No Test Identification
Parade was conducted to fix the identity of the person who allegedly
impersonated "Sharad Targe." Given that PW-1 does not identify the
accused in court, failure to conduct TIP assumes significant importance
and operates in favour of the accused.
16. Investigative Lapses Admitted by the Investigating Officer
(PW-4): PW-4 made the following important admissions: Call details of
the mobile phones were never obtained, though the entire prosecution
case depends upon mobile conversations. He did not inquire whether
more than one person with the name "Sharad Targe" existed in the Police
Department. He admitted that supplementary statements were prepared
much later and did not remember the flaws pointed out by the
Superintendent of Police during scrutiny of the investigation. He
admitted that no father's name of the person calling himself "Sharad
Targe" was ever verified. These deficiencies create doubt about the
fairness and reliability of the investigation.
Sknair
12/19 apeal-347-18.odt
17. Verification and Trap Not Resulting in Acceptance of Money:
Both PW-1 and PW-2 consistently state that: The alleged person refused
to accept money, No acceptance of bribe took place, And the trap
concluded in failure. Under settled law, mere demand without acceptance
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; in the present case, even the
alleged demand stands on shaky footing due to identification failures and
contradictions.
18. Informant's Statement (Exh.22) Shows Overwriting and
Omissions: PW-1 pointed out overwriting in the date of his statement
(Exh.22) and deposed that: He did not state several important facts
during recording, though they appear in the prosecution narrative. No
signatures of panchas or of himself were taken on the date mentioned.
This further reduces the reliability of the foundational document of the
prosecution.
19. The most significant aspect emerging from the prosecution
evidence is the categorical failure of PW-1, the informant, to identify the
accused. PW-1 is the originator of the complaint and the person allegedly
contacted by an individual introducing himself as "Sharad Targe." In his
Sknair
13/19 apeal-347-18.odt
examination-in-chief, PW-1 unambiguously stated that the accused
present in Court was not the person who met him near Police
Headquarters, Chandrapur, nor the one who identified himself as "Sharad
Targe." In cross-examination, he reiterated this position and denied all
suggestions regarding lapse of memory or any compromise. When the
principal witness disowns identification, and when demand of money is
attributed solely to a person whose identity remains unestablished, the
entire foundation of the prosecution case becomes doubtful.
20. The evidence of the panch witness, PW-2 Maroti Nikhare,
further weakens the prosecution version. PW-2 admitted that there was
no audio recording of the alleged conversation between PW-1 and the
person claiming to be "Sharad Targe," either during verification or during
trap proceedings. He also conceded that he himself did not hear the
conversation over the phone and was unable to say what the person on
the other end had stated. He admitted that the call records were never
verified, and his own statement was recorded after a considerable delay of
15-20 days. These admissions diminish the reliability of PW-2 as an
independent corroborative witness and indicate that the alleged demand
Sknair
14/19 apeal-347-18.odt
was never objectively verified by the investigating agency. When the
essential element of "demand" rests on weak and uncorroborated
testimony, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.
21. There are several material contradictions and omissions in the
depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, which further erode the credibility of the
prosecution. PW-1 admitted that several facts stated in Court did not find
place in his earlier statement, such as references to a friend named
"Gedam," details of conversations with the alleged person, and specific
instructions received from the ACB. PW-2 similarly admitted that he had
not mentioned key details in his statement, such as the questions asked by
the alleged police constable. These discrepancies are not minor but go to
the root of the prosecution narrative, creating inconsistencies in the very
sequence of events, the alleged demand, and the nature of the meetings.
The presence of overwriting in Exh.22, the informant's foundational
statement, further casts doubts on the fairness and accuracy of the
investigation.
22. Another important aspect operating in favour of the accused
is the admitted fact that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was
Sknair
15/19 apeal-347-18.odt
conducted. The Investigating Officer (PW-4) admitted that no such
exercise was arranged. In a case where the identity of the alleged offender
is central and where the informant explicitly denies identifying the
accused failure to conduct TIP is a grave omission. TIP is especially
crucial when the accused was unknown to the complainant and the
prosecution case hinges on the identity of the person who impersonated a
police officer and allegedly demanded money. The absence of such a vital
investigative step renders the prosecution's attempt to fix identity wholly
unreliable.
23. The testimony of PW-4, the Investigating Officer, discloses
several investigative lapses that seriously affect the integrity of the
prosecution case. PW-4 conceded that no call detail records were
obtained, although the prosecution case rests heavily on alleged
telephonic conversations. He also admitted that he did not ascertain
whether more than one person named "Sharad Targe" was working in the
Department, nor did he verify the father's name of the individual
claiming that identity. The officer also accepted that supplementary
statements were recorded much later and that he could not recall the
Sknair
16/19 apeal-347-18.odt
specific defects pointed out by the Superintendent of Police during
scrutiny. These omissions and lapses not only indicate a defective
investigation but also create a reasonable possibility that the accused has
been wrongly implicated.
24. Another material circumstance emerging from the evidence is
that the alleged public servant never accepted any money. Both PW-1 and
PW-2 consistently stated that the person who claimed to be "Sharad
Targe" refused to accept the money on the ground that he doubted the
identity of the accompanying person. The trap, therefore, concluded in
failure. It is settled law that both demand and acceptance must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the PC Act. In the present
case, not only has acceptance taken place, but even the alleged demand is
rendered doubtful due to failure of identification and lack of
corroboration. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence remain
unproved.
25. On a cumulative consideration of the evidence, it is apparent that
the prosecution has failed to establish a consistent, credible, and legally
Sknair
17/19 apeal-347-18.odt
sustainable case against the appellant. The material deficiencies in the
prosecution case include:
1. Non-identification of the appellant by the complainant;
2. Contradictions in the statements of the complainant;
3. Absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP);
4. Lack of corroboration from the panch witness;
5. Non-production of call records; and
6. Admitted lapses in the investigation.
These deficiencies, taken together, give rise to multiple reasonable doubts
regarding the prosecution case. It is well settled that the prosecution is
required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present matter,
the prosecution's version appears doubtful and improbable on material
particulars.
26. In B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that when the complainant does not support the
prosecution case and disowns the allegations made in the complaint, the
complaint cannot be relied upon as evidence of the alleged offence.
Sknair
18/19 apeal-347-18.odt
Further, in the absence of independent corroboration such as witnesses
present at the time of the alleged transaction or proof of demand the
evidence of the complainant alone cannot sustain the allegations.
27. In the present case, the complainant has specifically stated in
the deposition that the appellant is not the person who demanded money,
and the identification of the appellant has been denied. Therefore, on a
comparison of facts, the present case is on an even stronger footing than
the cited authority. Consequently, the offences punishable under Sections
7 or 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) and Section 20 of the PC Act, 1988, are not made out
against the appellant.
CONCLUSION
26. From the analysis of the prosecution evidence, it is clear that
the essential elements of the alleged offence; particularly the identity of
the accused, the demand of illegal gratification, and the acceptance of
money; have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The star witness
does not identify the accused, the independent panch witness does not
corroborate the prosecution case, the investigation is marred by
significant lapses, and the trap ended without acceptance of any bribe.
Sknair
19/19 apeal-347-18.odt
These circumstances, viewed together, create substantial and reasonable
doubt regarding the involvement of the accused. In such a situation, the
accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the prosecution cannot be
said to have established its case with the degree of certainty required
under criminal law.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and
order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Chandrapur in Special ACB Case No. 5 of 2009 is hereby set aside. The
appellant is acquitted of the charges of offence punishable under section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. His personal bond and surety
bond are discharged. The fine amount, if deposited shall be refunded. A
copy of this judgment along with the record of trial Court be forwarded to
the trial Court.
[NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.]
Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR
Designation: PS To Honourable
Sknair Judge
Date: 27/11/2025 18:30:38
