Bombay High Court
Ashok Seetaram Ambhore vs State Of Maha on 17 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:29639
*1* apeal 225a261o04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.225 OF 2004
Dr.Jagannath s/o Rangnath Kakade,
Age : 52 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Aurangabad.
...Appellant/ accused No.1
-VERSUS-
The State of Maharashtra.
...Respondent
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.261 OF 2004
Ashok Seetaram Ambhore,
Age : 40 years, Occ : Service,
R/o Nav-Jeevan Colony, HUDCO,
N-11, F-4/8, Aurangabad,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.
...Appellant/ accused No.2
- VERSUS -
The State of Maharashtra.
...Respondent
...
Shri Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the appellant/ accused
No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.225/2004.
Shri R.S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Shri V.A. Chavan,
Ms. Ashwini S. Deshmukh and Ms. Meenal S. Deshmukh, for the
appellant/ accused No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.261/2004.
Shri N.R. Dayama, APP for the respondent /State/ prosecution.
...
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
Reserved on : 09 October 2025
Pronounced on : 17 October 2025
*2* apeal 225a261o04
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same
impugned judgment, they are being decided by this common
judgment. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the
parties are referred to in their original capacity i.e. the appellant
(Dr.Jagannath Rangnath Kakade) as accused No.1, the appellant
(Ashok Seetaram Ambhore) as accused No.2, the
respondent/State of Maharashtra as the prosecution State and
PW-3 Pandit Alanjkar as complainant.
2. The impugned judgment and order in these appeals
is dated 01.04.2004 passed by learned Special Judge,
Aurangabad, in Special Case No.30/1998, which reads thus:-
"1. The accused no.1 Dr. Jagannath Rangnath
Kakade is hereby convicted for the offence
punishable under sec. 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer S.I. for
6 months with a fine of Rs. 3000/-i/d to suffer
S.I. for 2 months.
2. He is further convicted for the offence
punishable under sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to
suffer S.I. for one year with a fine of Rs.3000/-
i/d to suffer S.I. for four months.
*3* apeal 225a261o04
3. Both the substantive sentences to run
concurrently
4. The accused no.2 Ashok Seetaram Ambhore is
hereby convicted for the offence punishable
under sec. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act
and sentenced to suffer S.I. for 6 months with a
fine of Rs. 3000/- i/d to suffer S.I. for 2
months.
5. Accused no. 2 and 3 are acquitted for the
offences punishable under scc. 14 of
Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. A bail bond of accused no.3 Suresh Waghule
stands cancelled.
7. A complainant Pandit Alanjkar is returned the
amount of Rs.9000/- as against the tainted
notes on 9.10.1997, hence the tainted notes of
Rs. 9000/- be credited to the State Treasury.
8. A pant and the amount of Rs. 600/- attached
from accused Ambhore be returned to him after
the period of appeal is over."
3. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals can be
summarized as under:-
As per the prosecution story, PW-3 complainant
Pandit Alanjkar was working as Police Constable at Aurangabad
Headquarter and while on duty, he met with an accident on
05.07.1995. He was hospitalized initially at Government
*4* apeal 225a261o04
Hospital and thereafter, in private hospital, namely, Kamal Nayan
Bajaj Hospital. He underwent treatment till 09.02.1996 and he
lost both legs despite having spent huge amount on treatment.
According to PW-3 complainant, the medical bill of Rs.93,000/-
was submitted for reimbursement to the office of Superintendent
of Police (Rural), Aurangabad. The said medical bill was
forwarded to the office of Civil Surgeon, Aurangabad for
sanction, where accused No.1 Dr. Kakade was working as Civil
Surgeon, accused No.2 Ambhore was working as clerk and
accused No.3 Waghule was working as peon. When the
complainant met accused No.1 Dr. Kakade, he told him to meet
accused No.2 Ambhore. When the complainant met accused
No.2 Ambhore, he told him that he will have to pay 10% of the
bill amount. On 04.04.1997, when the complainant met accused
No.1, accused No.2 Ambhore was present. The complainant then
met accused No.3 Waghule, who asked him to pay 10% of bill
amount for getting approval from accused No.1 Dr. Kakade.
Accused No.1 Dr. Kakade also told the complainant that if he
pays 10% of bill amount, then only he will sign on bill.
Therefore, the complainant lodged complaint (exhibit 29) on
07.04.1997 with Anti Corruption Bureau.
*5* apeal 225a261o04
4. According to the prosecution, on 15.04.1997, the
panchas were called and pre-trap panchanama (exhibit 40) was
made. Accordingly, trap was laid and accused No.2 Ambhore was
caught hold while accepting bribe. Therefore, FIR bearing
Cr.No.3016/1997 (exhibit 73) was registered under Sections 7,
12, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
against the accused.
5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet
was filed. The case was committed for trial to the Special Court.
The charge was framed and read over to the accused, to which,
the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The
prosecution led oral as well as documentary evidence consisting
of 14 witnesses. After hearing both sides and considering
evidence on record, learned Special Judge, Aurangabad, passed
the impugned judgment and order dated 01.04.2004. Hence, both
these appeals by accused Nos.1 and 2.
6. Learned advocate Shri Ghanekar appearing for
accused No.1/ appellant in Criminal Appeal No.225/2004
submitted that learned Special Judge has not properly
appreciated evidence on record and has erroneously convicted
*6* apeal 225a261o04
accused No.1. His first and foremost submission is in respect of
the sanction granted for prosecuting accused No.1 Dr. Kakade.
According to him, there is no proper sanction granted for
prosecuting accused No.1 as the same is granted by the authority,
which is not competent to remove accused No.1 from service.
According to him, proper sanctioning authority is the Chief
Minister of State of Maharashtra. However, PW-1 Kamlakar
Sankhe, who granted sanction for prosecution of accused No.1,
was working as Under Secretary to the Government of
Maharashtra. The role of Under Secretary was only to sign on the
communication for communicating the sanctioning order.
Sanction can be proved either by examining sanctioning
authority or by proving original sanction. According to learned
advocate, in this case, the original sanction is in the form of
notings of all authorities and final approval given by the Chief
Minister. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the
sanction order. According to learned advocate, though PW-1
Kamlakar Sankhe claimed to be sanctioning authority, however,
he was working as Under Secretary to Government. PW-1
admitted in his cross-examination that on the appointment order
of accused No.1 Dr. Kakade, there was signature of the Secretary
*7* apeal 225a261o04
and the Under Secretary is subordinate to the Secretary.
Therefore, no subordinate officer to appointing authority can
remove the public servant from service and therefore, the
sanctioning authority should be the authority, who can remove
the public servant. As such, PW-1 being subordinate to the
Secretary, he cannot remove accused No.1 from service and
therefore, he cannot be said to be sanctioning authority. As per
delegation of powers, the Secretary rank officials are only
empowered to sign on behalf of the Government and, therefore,
they cannot be said to be sanctioning authority.
7. The second limb of submission of Shri Ghanekar is
that evidence of the complainant (PW-3) regarding first demand
on 29.03.1997 is not being corroborated by any other evidence.
The complainant has suppressed the fact of presence of Police
Head Constable Bhople, who was suspended constable. In his
cross-examination, PW-3/ complainant admitted that on
29.03.1997 suspended Police Head Constable Bhople was with
him and one Gaikwad, who was driver of accused No.1, was
known to him. However, the prosecution has failed to
corroborate the allegation of first demand on 29.03.1997 by
*8* apeal 225a261o04
recording evidence of Bhople or driver Gaikwad. According to
learned advocate Shri Ghanekar, even in respect of the second
alleged demand of 04.04.1997, the complainant PW-3 in his
cross-examination stated that in all, he visited the office of Civil
Surgeon on three occasions, one with Bhople and two times with
panch witness and Bhople was not present on 04.04.1997.
Learned advocate Shri Ghanekar vehemently submitted that as
per evidence of the complainant PW-3 himself, his first meeting
along with Bhople was on 29.03.1997 and thereafter, he visited
on two occasions on 07.04.1997 and 11.04.1997 and thereafter,
with panch witness on 15.04.1997. Therefore, cross-examination
of PW-3/ complainant falsifies his meeting with accused No.1 on
04.04.1997 and therefore, demand allegation of this date appears
to be fictitious and imaginary. There are material omissions as
regards demand evidence. Only material which is against
accused No.1 is regarding demand of 04.04.1997. The
complainant is untrustworthy witness as he has suppressed the
fact of previous refused by accused No.1 and also the fact of
presence of constable Bhople along with him on 29.03.1997. On
07.04.1997, there is no meeting with accused No.1 and,
therefore, there is no evidence of demand against accused No.1.
*9* apeal 225a261o04
According to learned advocate Shri Ghanekar, as regards incident
dated 15.04.1997, there is no corroboration by witnesses as
regards presence of two more persons in the cabin of accused
No.1. Accused No.1 was examining patient and two persons
were present in his cabin. However, evidence of the complainant
is not corroborated with the panch witness PW-5 Nilkant Dake.
There are material omissions in the evidence of PW-5 Nilkant
Dake. Therefore, there is no strong evidence against accused
No.1 Dr. Kakade. He, therefore, prayed for acquittal of accused
No.1.
8. In support of aforesaid submissions, Shri Ghanekar
has relied upon following judgments :-
(a) Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of A.P., 1979 AIR SC
677.
(b) The State of Maharashtra vs. Sanjivkumar Bapurao
Wadikar and others, Criminal Writ Petition No.539/2016 along
with other petitions at Aurangabad Bench, decided on
17.04.2017.
(c) Nivrutti Ganpati Sadekar vs. State of Maharashtra,
2019 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri) 355.
(d) Waman Malhari Jambhulkar vs. The State of
Maharashtra, 2019 (2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 543.
(e) Suresh Purushottam Ashtankar vs. The State of
Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.408/2012, Nagpur Bench,
*10* apeal 225a261o04
decided on 31.10.2014.
9. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Deshmukh appearing
on behalf of accused No.2/ appellant in Criminal Appeal
No.261/2004 submitted that as far as sanction in case of accused
No.2 Ambhore is concerned, PW-2 Dr. Prakash Sathe, who is
sanctioning authority to accused No.2, has admitted that he has
not seen the appointment order of accused No.2. The
appointment order of accused No.2 is also not exhibited. Accused
No.2 had no official work of the complainant PW-3. It was
accused No.1 Dr. Kakade, who was assigned to do official work
of sanctioning of bills of the complainant. Learned Senior
Advocate Shri Deshmukh has also taken me through the entire
evidence of PW-3 complainant, to submit that there is
improvement as regards meeting of the complainant with
accused No.2 Ambhore and sometimes, the complainant stated
that he met accused No.2 Ambhore once and some times, he
stated that he met him on two to three occasions. PW-3
complainant has admitted in his evidence that he was instructed
to pay tainted notes to accused No.1 Dr. Kakade only. Moreover,
*11* apeal 225a261o04
he was also not knowing as to which clerk in the office of
accused No.1 Dr. Kakade was dealing with the work of
sanctioning medical bill and leave. PW-3 complainant has
admitted that he had never gone to the office between 07.04.1997
till date of trap and on the day of verification, he directly went
into the cabin of accused No.1 Dr. Kakade. PW-3 also
categorically admitted that accused No.2 Ambhore told him that
he had no concern with that money and not to pay the same to
him and pay it to accused No.1 Dr. Kakade. It is specifically
admitted by PW-3 that accused No.2 Ambhore was not prepared
to take money and PW-3 had complained against accused No.1
Dr. Kakade only.
10. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Deshmukh has taken
me through evidence of all witnesses to point out discrepancies.
He pointed out evidence of PW-4 Janardhan Sonawane, who is
shadow panch for verification and he candidly stated that
accused No.2 Ambhore did not demand money and told the
complainant to meet accused No.1 Dr. Kakade for work. PW-5
Nilkant Dake, who is shadow panch for trap, stated in his
evidence that the complainant met him on 15.04.1997 for the
*12* apeal 225a261o04
first time and he was not interrogated by the police in his
presence. PW-5 admitted that no instructions regarding accused
No.2 Ambhore were issued, nor his name was referred in the
office of Anti Corruption Bureau and it was only decided to meet
accused No.1 Dr. Kakade. Learned Senior Advocate Shri
Deshmukh, therefore, submitted that trap was decided to be led
only on Dr.Kakade and accused No.2 was not at all in picture.
Shri Deshmukh has also invited my attention towards evidence
of PW-13 Tandale, Investigating Officer, who admitted in his
evidence that during the course of investigation, he was aware of
the fact that accused No.2 Ambhore was not authorized to grant
medical bill. He had never asked the complainant to talk with
accused No.2 Ambhore. Learned Senior Advocate Shri
Deshmukh, therefore, submitted that there is no evidence at all
against accused No.2 as regards demand. He submitted that mere
recovery from accused No.2 is not sufficient to bring guilt home
and, therefore, accused No.2 cannot be held liable for conviction
at any costs. He, therefore, prayed for acquittal of accused No.2.
11. In support of his above submissions, learned Senior
Advocate Shri Deshmukh has relied upon following judgments:-
*13* apeal 225a261o04
(a) Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of
Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731.
(b) P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of
Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2015) 10 SCC 152.
12. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State/
prosecution has strongly opposed the prayer of the accused. The
evidence on record clearly proves beyond all doubts that the
accused are guilty and they have been rightly convicted by
learned Special Judge. Demand as well as acceptance is proved
and there is corroboration of evidence to that effect. He,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of appeals.
13. After hearing the submissions of learned advocates,
I have gone through evidence on record minutely. The points that
arise for determination are: (i) Whether, the sanction accorded for
prosecution of the appellants is valid in law? And (ii) Whether,
the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification beyond reasonable doubt?
14. As far far as sanction granted by PW-1 Kamlakar
*14* apeal 225a261o04
Sankhe for prosecuting accused No.1 Dr. Kakade is concerned,
admittedly the appointing authority of accused No.1 Dr. Kakade
is the Secretary of Government whereas, the sanction is accorded
by PW-1, who was Under Secretary and not competent to remove
accused No.1 Dr. Kakade. Therefore, sanction accorded by PW-1
Under Secretary is no sanction. Under Section 19(1)(c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction can be accorded only by
the authority competent to remove the public servant from office.
PW-1 being an Under Secretary was subordinate to the
appointing authority (Secretary, Health Department), and hence,
not competent to remove the accused. Therefore, sanction is
invalid.
15. It is well settled that under Section 19(1)(c) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a valid sanction for
prosecution must be accorded by the authority competent to
remove the public servant from service. The object of this
requirement is to afford protection to honest officials from
frivolous prosecution and to ensure that the competent authority,
after due application of mind, considers the material before
according sanction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Iqbal
*15* apeal 225a261o04
Ahmed (supra) has held that sanction must be by the appointing
or removing authority, and any sanction granted by an officer
subordinate thereto is void. In the present case, PW-1 Kamlakar
Sankhe, who was only an Under Secretary, was admittedly
subordinate to the Secretary who was the appointing and
removing authority of accused No.1. Hence, the sanction
accorded by PW-1 is without jurisdiction and vitiates the entire
prosecution against accused No.1.
16. Insofar as sanction granted by PW-2 Dr. Prakash
Sathe for prosecuting accused No.2 Ambhore is concerned, PW-2
sanctioning authority has not applied mind while according
sanction. PW-2 admitted in his evidence that he has not seen the
appointment order of accused no.2. He also admitted that
accused No.2 Ambhore had no official work with the
complainant. As regards accused No. 2 Ambhore, the sanction
accorded by PW-2 Dr. Prakash Sathe also suffers from non-
application of mind. The sanctioning authority must, before
according sanction, peruse the relevant records and satisfy itself
that a prima facie case exists. In State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan,
(2007) 11 SCC 273, and State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain ,
*16* apeal 225a261o04
(2013) 8 SCC 119, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized
that a sanction order passed mechanically, without examining the
materials or understanding the nature of allegations, is invalid. In
the present case, PW-2 candidly admitted that he had not seen the
appointment order of accused No.2 and was unaware of his
official duties. This admission clearly establishes that the
sanctioning authority did not apply its mind to the facts of the
case, rendering the sanction invalid and vitiating the prosecution
against accused No.2.
17. As far as demand as against accused No.1 Dr.
Kakade is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove that
accused No.1 has demanded or accepted money. The amount has
been admittedly accepted by accused No.2 Ambhore. Whether,
accused No.1 Dr. Kakade has made any demand to the
complainant is not established by the prosecution by adducing
strong evidence. The prosecution is required to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt.
18. Insofar as demand in respect of accused No.2
Ambhore is concerned, the prosecution has failed to establish the
demand made by accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts.
*17* apeal 225a261o04
PW-2 Dr. Sathe has admitted in his evidence that accused No.2
had no official work of the complainant. There are discrepancies
in evidence of PW-3 complainant about demand made by
accused No.2. PW-3 admitted in his evidence that accused No.2
Ambhore told him that he had no concern with that money and
not to pay it to him and he was not prepared to accept money.
Even evidence of PW-4 Sonawane and PW-5 Dake categorically
admitted that accused No.2 did not demand money. PW-13
Tandale Investigating Officer also admitted that accused No.2
was not authorized to grant medical bill. There is no
corroborative evidence for the alleged demand by accused No.2
Ambhore.
19. The settled position of law, as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra) and P.
Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), is that proof of demand of illegal
gratification is an essential part for establishing the offence
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of tainted money,
unaccompanied by proof of a prior demand, is not sufficient to
convict the accused. The prosecution must prove beyond
*18* apeal 225a261o04
reasonable doubt that the accused not only demanded but also
accepted or obtained the gratification as a motive or reward for
doing or forbearing an official act.
20. In view of the discussion above, in absence of valid
sanction, the entire prosecution stands vitiated. Even otherwise,
on merits, the prosecution has failed to prove the foundational
fact of demand. The prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned judgment of
conviction dated 01.04.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Aurangabad in Special Case No.30/1998 is, therefore, quashed
and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. Bail
bonds stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the
appellants. The Criminal Appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)
