Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Shri. Sanjay Sudhakar Badgujar on 15 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:29248
CriAppeal-58-2015
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Jalgaon. ... Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Sudhakar Badgujar
Age 40 years, Occu. Service,
R/o 272, Dakshta Nagar, 34/1,
Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. ... Respondent
[Orig. Accused]
.....
Mr. V. S. Badakh, APP for the Appellant-State.
Mr. M. A. Tandale, Advocate for the Respondent.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 30.09.2025
Pronounced on : 15.10.2025
JUDGMENT :
1. The State hereby takes exception to judgment and order
dated 25.07.2014 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalgaon
in Special (ACB) Case No. 11 of 2013 by which, present respondent-
original accused has been acquitted from the charge under Section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CriAppeal-58-2015
FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE APPEAL
2. Vehicle/truck of complainant PW1 Krishna was seized by the
Talathi for indulging in illegal transportation of sand. PW1 had
applied for release of his vehicle in the court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate (CJM), got the order from the said court and carried it
with him to the Police Station, where he was initially asked to pay
fine with the RTO office, which he paid and again came back to the
Police Station and requested to release his truck. Accusations are that,
present accused, who was posted at Jalgaon City Police Station,
demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- for release of vehicle.
Complaint Exh. 9 was lodged by PW1, leading to planning and
executing trap at the hands of the ACB authorities. After report of the
Investigating Officer, crime was registered for offence under Section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for raising demand of bribe.
Accordingly, present respondent was tried.
The case of prosecution was rested on the testimony of four
witnesses and some documentary evidence. defence of accused was of
false implication.
CriAppeal-58-2015
After hearing both sides and appreciating the evidence on
record, learned trial Judge reached to a finding that, prosecution has
failed to prove the charges, and acquitted the accused by above
judgment and order, which is challenged by the State in the instant
Appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of the Appellant-State :
3. Learned APP pointed out that there is convincing evidence
about complainant approaching Police Station for release of his seized
vehicle and accused, who was posted at the Police Station, had
demanded Rs.15,000/- for releasing the same. Therefore, according
to learned APP, on receipt of complaint to that extent, the ACB
authorities had swung into action, planned trap in presence of
complainant as well as panchas and they were duly informed about
the procedure and payment of bribe on demand. That, there was
demand verification panchanama wherein, voice conversation of
accused was recorded. Thus, according to learned APP, there is
sufficient evidence about demand. He further submitted that PW1
complainant and PW2 shadow pancha are both consistent about
above evidence of demand. However, according to learned APP,
CriAppeal-58-2015
learned trial court has acquitted the accused on the ground that there
are contradictions in the versions of complainant, shadow pancha and
the Investigating Officer. In fact, according to learned APP, there was
none at all.
4. Learned APP also pointed out that, after due application of
mind, sanction was accorded, but learned trial court also held that
sanction was invalid. Thus, according to learned APP, the findings of
learned trial court are erroneous and contrary to the evidence on
record. Therefore, learned APP seeks indulgence of this Court by
allowing the appeal.
On behalf of the Respondent-Accused :
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the original accused-respondent
submitted that, prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the
charges. He pointed out that different versions were narrated by
complainant, shadow pancha and the very Investigating Officer on
material count of events and also on the point of alleged demand.
Therefore, when witnesses were not consistent, according to him,
learned trial court committed no error whatsoever in refusing to
accept such evidence. He further pointed out that in fact, it has come
CriAppeal-58-2015
on record that there was no work at all of the complainant with
accused and said work of releasing of vehicle was with one Munshi,
who has not been examined. He submitted that, desperately repeated
attempts were made to implicate, however, all attempts to trap had
failed because accused had not put up any demand by personally
meeting the complainant. He also put this Court through the answers
given by PW1, PW2 and PW4 in the cross and would submit that, it is
apparent that these witnesses are not consistent so as to accept their
versions. He further pointed out that, rather, complainant had
admitted that he was upset and annoyed with accused because of
several crimes registered against him for illegal activities. That,
further, complainant has admitted that the idea of lodging complaint
was not of his own, but it was on the advice of his friend. Thus, for all
above reasons, learned counsel supports the acquittal and urges to
dismiss the appeal.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
6. After hearing above submissions and on going through the
record, it transpires that the case of prosecution is rested on the
evidence of four witnesses, i.e. PW1 Krishna Koli - complainant, PW2
Khandu Kambale - shadow pancha, PW3 Jaikumar Susiraj, SP -
sanctioning authority and PW4 Sham Shinde - Investigating Officer.
CriAppeal-58-2015
7. Evidence of PW1 Krishna Koli (complainant) is at Exhibit 8 and
he has testified that he owns Tata Tipper (truck) bearing registration
no. MH 32/B-9681. That, the Talathi seized his vehicle while
transporting sand, he applied to the court of CJM for release of the
same, received orders, took it to the Police Station, requested police
to release the vehicle and was told by the police to first pay fine with
RTO office, which he duly paid and again returned to the Police
Station with a request to release the vehicle. It is his testimony that,
accused had demanded Rs.15,000/- for releasing his truck and further
said that, unless said amount is paid, vehicle will not be released.
Therefore, he approached the ACB authorities and lodged complaint
Exhibit 9. He further testified about ACB authorities arranging
panchas, introducing them to the complainant, they being given
instructions and exercise of verification being undertaken. He also
deposed that, he carried voice recorder and switched it on prior to
conversation and again put up demand of release of truck and
accused told that he was will have to pay Rs.15,000/- and only
thereupon he would get his truck released. The voice recorder was
handed back to the ACB authorities, who got convinced about
demand and further procedure of currency being tainted with
anthracene powder and he and pancha being instructed to pay on
CriAppeal-58-2015
demand, was carried out. He further deposed that accordingly, he and
pancha approached Police Station at 4.00 p.m.. He also testified that
on reaching Police Station, accused was not seen and so he made
phone call but accused did not accept it and therefore, he came back
to the ACB officer. He further claimed that after short while, accused
again came near the court building, but on seeing them, accused
turned his motorcycle and went away and therefore, tainted currency
was handed back to the ACB officer. He further deposed that, on
16.10.2012, one Nilesh Patil approached him with a request to
withdraw the complaint filed by him with ACB, and then he realized
that accused had got knowledge about complaint being filed with
ACB authorities and that accused will not accept bribe amount.
Further, on 18.10.2012, he received message from Jalgaon City Police
Station that he should take back his vehicle and he accordingly took
its possession. He further testified in the Court that thereafter, no
work remained with the accused and ACB authorities had returned
him the amount and recorded his statement. He identified accused,
who made demand, to be present in the court.
Complainant is extensively cross-examined on the points of
several crimes registered against him at Jalgaon City Police Station
and he being arrested and he also indulging in transportation of sand
CriAppeal-58-2015
without obtaining licence, paying fine and being involved in four
crimes for theft of sand.
In further cross, he admitted that he had requested Munshi
that, due to his financial condition, he was unable to deposit fine
amount and at that time, he fairly admitted that, accused had told
him and Munshi that it would be illegal to release the truck without
paying fine with RTO office. He also admitted that there was no
special reason for filing complaint with ACB Office but as per advice
of his friend, he had filed the complaint.
In para 11, he admitted that on 16.10.2012, when he visited
Police Station, accused was not present there and he himself made a
phone call to accused, but it was not attended. He also admitted that
after seeing them, accused had went away on his motorcycle and at
that time, he had not made any phone call to accused. He also
admitted that on 18.10.2012, while giving him possession of truck,
Munshi of Jalgaon City Police Station had taken bond of Rs.15,000/-
from him. That time also, he admitted regarding not making phone
call to accused and further admitted that he did not meet accused that
day at all.
CriAppeal-58-2015
In para 12 of the cross he admitted that, he was annoyed with
the accused for making him pay fine with the RTO office and was also
annoyed with police for unnecessarily filing complaint and harassing
him.
8. PW2 Khandu Kamble, who acted as shadow pancha, is
examined at Exhibit 11. He also narrated about being introduced to
complainant, hearing about demand for release of his truck, ACB
authorities giving necessary instructions, he accompanying
complainant for demand verification. He deposed that, on reaching
the premises of Police Station, de facto complainant, pointing to the
truck, told him about it being seized with full of sand. He also
deposed about complainant asking accused on phone, "where he
was?" and accused allegedly told de facto complainant that he was in
SP office and so they waited in Police Station for some time. Again de
facto complainant made second phone call and at that time, accused
told that he was with his saheb and so, they again waited outside
Police Station. He further deposed that while accused was passing
from the gate of Police Station, de facto complainant pointed it to this
witness and they both followed him in the Police Station. He also
deposed about complainant requesting for release of vehicle after
switching on the voice recorded, and accused asking him to pay
CriAppeal-58-2015
Rs.15,000/- for release of truck, and he further stated that, accused
told complainant that if he is not having Rs.15,000/-, he should pay
two trolleys sand, but complainant expressed his inability to give the
same also and being told to pay either of the two. He deposed about
handing over voice recorder to ACB authorities and its panchanama
being drawn at Exhibit 14. He also narrated about the events which
took place in Police Station at 4.00 p.m.. However, according to him,
when they went to Police Station, at that time, accused was sitting in
a room which was bolted from outside. Thereafter, he and
complainant came out of the police station and waited for accused,
but he did not come. Thereafter complainant made phone call to
accused but he did not accept the phone call and therefore, they came
back and informed the DY.S.P. He further stated that he realized that
accused had doubt about the trap and therefore Dy.S.P. decided to
suspend the trap that day. Again on 18.10.2012, when they came to
ACB authorities, and while at guest house, they came to know that
the truck of de facto complainant was already released and therefore
Dy.S.P. decided to stall the proceedings.
Above witness is also cross-examined at length. Main cross is
about demand verification and trap. Regarding this, he answered that
while they were entering the premises of Jalgaon City Police Station,
CriAppeal-58-2015
de facto complainant had not switched on the voice recorder and that
it was switched on while complainant inquired about accused. He
admitted that complainant had not informed the Dy.S.P. by making
phone call that accused was not available in Police Station. He
admitted that, complainant did not receive phone call from any
mobile. He also answered that when script of conversation was noted,
the ACB officials had written some portion of the conversation and
some portion was dropped and that, there were voices of so many
persons recorded in the voice recorded.
9. PW3 Jaikumar Susiraj, Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon, is the
sanctioning authority who testified at Exhibit 25 regarding receiving
ACB papers, studying the same and according sanction dated
12.08.2013 Exhibit 26. He answered in his cross that it is not
mentioned in the sanction order Exhibit 26 as to how much bribe was
demanded by accused and how much was accepted. Then he
volunteered that accused demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/-. He
admitted about crimes being registered against de facto complainant
including crime under Section 307 of IPC, and he denied taking legal
opinion prior to according sanction.
10. PW4 Sham Shinde, P.I., is the Investigating Officer.
CriAppeal-58-2015
ANALYSIS
11. Here, on one hand, according to learned APP, witnesses were
consistent on material count but learned trial court disbelieved their
version and, taking minor contradictions and omissions into
consideration, case of prosecution is dismissed.
12. Consequently, on such lines, the evidence is re-appreciated. It is
noticed that according to the complainant, his truck was seized on
10.09.2012 and after lodging report, demand verification was done
on 16.10.2012 and conversation was recorded in voice recorder.
Complainant himself stated that seeing them, accused had turned
back his motorcycle and went away and therefore, the first attempt of
trap at 4.00 p.m. had failed. He further stated that ACB authorities
postponed the trap after two days. PW2, on above count, has stated
that the de facto complainant made phone call to accused but accused
said that he was in the SP office. Second call was also made by the de
facto complainant to accused, whereupon accused said that he was
with his saheb. On the third occasion, this witness stated that the de
facto complainant requested for release of his truck and at that time,
accused allegedly told him to give Rs.15,000/- or if he is not in a
position to pay, then to pay in the form of two trolleys sand. This is
CriAppeal-58-2015
not the version of the complainant about choice being given to him by
accused that he should either pay Rs.15,000/- or to pay in the form of
two trolleys sand. Even the very Investigating Officer has not stated to
this extent. Therefore, as stated by the learned counsel for the
respondent, there are variances about the exact events that took place
during alleged recording of conversation.
13. Apparently, though all the witnesses are cross-examined, one
fact is indisputably emerging that, on the day of trap, accused had
disconnected the calls of complainant and though accused came
towards the back side of court building, on seeing complainant, he
allegedly turned back and went away. Therefore, there is no actual
acceptance as it had failed, and complainant himself has stated that
they realized that accused had entertained doubt that trap has been
laid and therefore, he did not turn up to accept the amount. As stated
above, PW1 complainant, PW2 shadow pancha and PW4 Investigating
Officer are not consistent on the very aspect of demand also. Even
when there was said to be recording of voice sample, requirements of
Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act does not seem to have been
complied so as to accept the evidence in electronic form. Answers
given by complainant in para 11 of cross inflict severe damage to
prosecution version. Therefore, with such quality of evidence, and
CriAppeal-58-2015
when prosecution could not also establish the very aspect of demand,
there is no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. Hence, the
following order is passed :
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
