Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay Damodhar Gore on 10 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:28537
ALS-149-2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 149 OF 2018
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station, Bidkin,
Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Applicant
Versus
Sanjay Damodhar Gore,
Age : 48 years, Occu. : Police Naik,
R/o. Plot No. 10, Komalnagar,
Padegaon, Aurangabad. ... Respondent.
.....
Mr. D. R. Korade, APP for Applicant - State.
Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Rakshanda
Jaiswal i/b. Mr.Vishal Chavan, Advocate for Respondent.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 23 SEPTEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 10 OCTOBER 2025
ORDER :
1. Present application by State is with prayers for granting
leave to question the judgment and order of acquittal passed by
learned Special Judge-5, Aurangabad in Special (ACB) Case No.04 of
2014 acquitting present respondent from charge under sections 7,
13(1)(d) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
2. Learned APP would point out that present respondent
was charge-sheeted and tried for demanding illegal gratification and
ALS-149-2018
even accepting the same. He further elaborated that, the respondent,
who was working in police department and posted at Bidkin Police
Station, had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- to
prevent the arrest of complainant's relatives in a case arising out of
quarrel. That, to desist from arrest, there was demand which was
apparently illegal gratification. He further pointed out that,
complainant lodged report with ACB authorities, who entertained the
complaint, planned a trap in presence of shadow panch and after
giving necessary instructions, trap was laid. He further submitted
that, both, complainant as well as shadow panch, while in the
company of each other, demand verification was done. That,
panchanama to this extent has been drawn and subsequently on
given date complainant and shadow panch went to the police station
and approached the accused. He raised demand and the same was
complied. That, after necessary signal was relayed, accused was
apprehended with tainted currency. Thus, according to learned APP,
there is evidence on the point of demand as well as acceptance.
3. He further pointed out that, after completing
investigation, necessary sanction was obtained and on receiving the
same, accused person was tried. According to learned APP, only
important witnesses have deposed and has stuck up their versions.
Learned APP took this court through the testimonies of both,
ALS-149-2018
complainant as well as shadow panch, however, some minor
omissions are highlighted by trial court and acquittal has been
granted. He further stressed that, prosecution has a good case on
merits. That, the necessary ingredients to attract the charges are
very much available, and therefore, learned APP seeks indulgence of
this court in granting leave.
4. In answer to above, learned Senior Counsel Mr.
Deshmukh pointed out that, prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the charges. That, star witnesses like complainant and shadow
panch are not consistent nor lending support to each other. Learned
Senior counsel took this court through the answers given by
complainant as well cross faced by shadow panch and pointed out
that, very essential requirements of demand and acceptance have
come under shadow of doubt on material counts. He further pointed
out that, though an attempt was made to record a voice sample, the
prosecution failed to adduce evidence to that extent and also failed to
place essential certificate required under section 65B of the Evidence
Act. That, after meticulous consideration of available material,
learned trial Judge was pleased to acquit the accused, and therefore,
he urges to refuse the leave as there is already judgment of acquittal
is in favour of accused.
ALS-149-2018
5. Heard. Perused the papers. Present respondent seems to
have faced trial vide Special (ACB) Case No.4 of 2014. Prosecution
seems to have rested its case on the evidence of PW1 complainant,
PW2 shadow panch and PW3 Investigating Officer and crucial
evidence is that of complainant and shadow panch. It is expected
that, these two witnesses restrict to their versions about demand as
well as acceptance of illegal gratification.
6. Studied the evidence. Complainant is examined at Exh.19
and it is his testimony that present respondent original accused, who
worked as head constable, demanded Rs.5,000/- to evade arrest of
his brother Tulshiram, Baliram and Renuka. Therefore, he lodged
report with ACB. While in presence of shadow panch, verification
panchanama was drawn and he and panch approached accused. He
claims that accused asked him whether he brought the money and on
asking the accused 'to give', he handed over cash to accused, which
he accepted and kept it in the left side pocket of his pant. After which
he came out and relayed the signal. However, as pointed out, while
under cross, complainant has admitted about visiting his own
complaint prior to stepping into witness box and that he was
specifically instructed to depose accordingly. In paragraph 7 of the
cross, he has admitted that the accused did not voluntarily ask him
to pay a bribe for evading arrest and further candidly admitted that
ALS-149-2018
accused did not ask him to pay money at the time of trap also. Such
answers weighed over the learned trial Judge in drawing inference
that complainant had referred to his own report and thereafter
deposed in the witness box.
7. PW2 Uttam is the shadow panch and his evidence is at
Exh.24. He also spoke regarding he be engaged to act as panch, and
he accompanying complainant to visit accused. He also stated that, in
a room at police station, complainant had recorded voice
conversation wherein accused and complainant talked about his
work with accused, upon which accused put up a demand of
Rs.4,000/- and complainant held it before him and accused accepted
it. However, as pointed out, while under cross, shadow panch is
unable to state whether episode of voice recording is reflected in the
panchanama or the voice recorder has been at all seized by way of
Muddemal. He admitted that, statement of accused was recorded, but
he is unable to tell whether it was recorded at the police rest house or
when he brought at the ACB office after the trap. He also admitted
that in the verification panchanama, the conversation exchanged
between complainant and accused as recorded in the voice recorder,
is not reflected and he is unable to explain why material to this
extent is missing in the panchanama.
ALS-149-2018
8. PW1 complainant admitted that when voice recorder was
played, it was not clearly audible. He also admitted that accused did
not voluntarily ask to pay to evade arrest of relatives. Therefore,
complainant has admitted that, there was no demand on the first
count by accused, which indeed turned out to be fatal to the
prosecution.
9. Testimony of Investigating Officer and complainant does
not match with the contents of panchanama. Further it has come to
light that, on 29.10.2013 and 30.10.2013 relatives of complainant
were already arrested. Therefore, subsequent demand to evade
arrest itself comes under shadow of doubt.
10. Defence has put up a case of thrusting. There is no
rebuttal of the same by prosecution. Therefore, with above quality of
evidence, this court does not find any infirmity in the analysis,
appreciation and further conclusion as is tried to be questioned by
State in appeal. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) Leave is refused.
(ii) The application for leave to appeal by State is rejected.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
