Bombay High Court
The State Of Mah vs Shaikh Moin Suleman on 22 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:25665
{1} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 694 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra
Through P.I. Anti Corruption Bureau,
Nanded. ....Appellant
Versus
Shaikh Moin S/o Suleman
Age: 35 years, Occu.: Talathi,
Sajja Sindkhed, Tq.Mahur,
Dist.Nanded. .....Respondent
.....
APP for Appellant : Mr.S.P. Joshi
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. H.I.Pathan
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 19 SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 22 SEPTEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. State hereby assails judgment and order dated 01-12-2006
passed by the learned Special Judge, Nanded in Special (ACB) Case
No.16 of 2004, acquitting present respondent from charges under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO TRIAL
2. Complainant PW1 Suresh approached accused (respondent
{2} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008
herein), who was working as Talathi for taking entry in the revenue
record on the basis of sale deed. According to prosecution, in spite of
repeated visits of complainants, his work was not done. Finally,
accused demanded Rs.2,000/- to carry out necessary entry and on
negotiations, accused agreed to accept Rs.1,500/- as illegal
gratification.
As complainant was not willing to pay bribe, he lodged
complaint (exh.12) with ACB authorities. ACB authorities
summoned independent pancha PW2 Wakharkar and introduced and
apprises him to PW1 complainant. Necessary instructions were
given. PW2 Pancha was directed to accompany complainant at the
time of demand and acceptance and PW1 complainant was further
asked to relay predetermined signal on acceptance.
3. Accordingly, PW1 complainant was accompanied by PW2
shadow pancha to the office of accused. There, accused enquired
about bribe amount and it was duly handed over by PW1
complainant followed by relaying predetermined signal. Thereafter,
ACB staff came inside the office. Accused was apprehended, and on
investigation, tried before learned Special Judge, who on
appreciation of prosecution evidence, reached to a finding that
{3} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008
prosecution failed to bring home the charges and thereby acquitted
accused.
Feeling aggrieved by the above decision, State has come up in
appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of appellant State :
4. Learned APP took this Court through the evidence of PW1
complainant, PW2 shadow pancha, PW3 sanctioning authority and
PW4 Investigating Officer and submits that there is cogent, reliable
and consistent evidence regarding bribe demanded by accused for
doing official work. According to him, both PW1 complainant and
PW2 shadow pancha are consistent and corroborating to each other.
Even evidence of PW4 Investigating Officer was sufficient to draw
inference of guilt and as such, according to learned APP, it was a fit
case for allowing the prosecution case. However, according to learned
APP, learned trial Court failed to consider and appreciate evidence,
more particularly evidence of PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow
pancha and erred in acquitting the accused. Hence, he seeks
interference at the hands of this Court by allowing the appeal.
{4} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008
On behalf Respondent Accused :
5. Per contra, supporting the judgment of the learned trial Court,
learned counsel for accused pointed out that there is no trustworthy,
reliable and legally acceptable evidence in support of the accusations.
He pointed out that here demand itself has not been proved. Rather
according to him, it is an act of deliberate thrusting of money without
there being any demand. Therefore, according to him, essentials of
establishing the charge being absent, there is no illegality or
perversity in the order of acquittal and he prays to dismiss the appeal
for want of merits.
EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT
6. In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of five
witnesses, which includes complainant, shadow pancha, sanctioning
authority and Investigating Officer.
In view of nature of charge, crucial evidence is of PW1
complainant and PW2 shadow pancha, who are said to be party to
the act of demand as well as acceptance. It would be appropriate to
reproduce evidence of PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow pancha
accordingly.
{5} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008
PW1 Suresh Rupsing Rathod is complainant. At exh.11, he
deposed as under :
"1. I own 13 acres of land at my village. 7 acres of my land is ancestral
and I have purchased another 5 acres of land from Rukinibai Lalsing
Rathod. It was purchased before two years. The sale deed was registered.
The said land was to be mutated in the name of my brother and therefore, I
took copy of sale deed to accused he was Talathi. I requested the accused
for mutation in the name of my brother.. I met with accused at Kinwat.
Accused told that sometime would be required for mutation. I handed over
the papers to accused and then went to him for 2 to 3 times. Accused told
that further time would be required. Accused then demanded Rs.1500/-. I
told accused that I would give the money later on as I was not having the
same then and there.
2 I then came to office of Anti Corruption Bureau Nanded and lodged
my complaint against accused alleging that accused demanded money for
effecting mutation. My complaint now shown to me is the same. It bears my
signature. Contents thereof are true and correct. Complaint is at exh. 12. I
was called by ACB officer on next day morning. ACB officer prepared a plan
in ACB office by smearing powder to currency notes. I had produced those
currency notes consisting of 15 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each. Pre trap
panchanama was prepared in ACB office. Panch witnesses were present for
that panchanama
3 After pre trap panchanama, myself, both panch and ACB staff went
to village Sindkhed. We reached there at 11.00 am. I went to the office of
accused and wished him. One panch witness was present with me. I told
accused that I had brought the money, and to give mutation extract to me. I
then gave money to accused but accused told me to come after sometime.
Accused accepted the money. I then came outside the office and gave
agreed signal to raiding party. ACB staff came inside the office and caught
hold the accused. On arrival of ACB staff, I was asked to stay outside. I was
not willing to give money to accused. Accused before court is same."
{6} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008
PW2 Pandurang Ganpatrao Wakharkar is shadow pancha. At
exh.13, he deposed as under :
"01. On 24-6-2004 1 was called in the office of ACB Nanded. Abdul
Hamid was present with me. ACB officer shri Pathak informed about the
trap. We were asked to come on 25-6-2004 at 6 p.m. Accordingly, we went
to the ACB office on 25-6-2004 at 6 p.m. Complainant Suresh Rathod, ACB
Officer Pathak and staff were present. Demonstration of characteristic of
anthracene ultra violate lamp was shown and I was told about the trap to
be lead at Shindkhed. Complainant produced 15 currency notes of 100
rupees each. Anthracene powder were smeared to those currency notes, and
the amount was kept in the pant pocket of complainant. I was instructed to
remain present with the complainant. Complainant was instructed to give
bribe money to the accused only on demand Complainant was instructed to
give signal to raiding party by giving three jerks to his handkerchief.
Panchnama of pre-trap was prepared in ACB office: Panchanama now
shown to me bears my signature. Contents thereof are true and correct. The
panchanama is at Exh.No.14.
02. After pre-trap panchanama, we left ACB office at about 7 to 7.30
a.m. and proceeded by jeep to Shindkhed. We reached Shindkhed at about
11.15 a.m.
03. The jeep was stopped near a river at some distance from village.
Myself and complainant went ahead to Talathi office by walk. Rest of the
members from raiding party staved at some distance. Shri Sheikh was
Talathi in that office. Complainant wished the Talathi. Accused before court
was the Talathi. Complainant enquired about his work of 7/12 extract.
Complainant asked if his work was completed. Accused asked the
complainant about money. Complainant told that he had brought the
money. Accused then took out one file from his cupboard, and put on table.
Accused then completed the remaining work by making some signatures.
Complainant then kept the amount of Rs.1500/- (bribe money) in the hands
{7} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008
of accused. Accused kept that money in the back pocket of his pant with his
right hand. Complainant came out side the room and gave agreed signal by
giving jerks to the handkerchief thrice. Members from raiding party rushed
there. PSI Hashmi caught hold both hands of accused. Shri Pathak gave his
introduction. The numbers of currency notes of bribe money tallied with the
numbers noted in pre-trap panchanama. Other four person were sitting in
the office room and they were asked to go out. The currency notes were
checked under the light of ultra violate lamp, Greenish shining was seen on
the currency notes. PHI Hashmi took out the bribe money from the pant
pocket and the pant was given to the accused. The pant from the person of
accused was checked under the light of ultra--violate lamp. Shining was
seen to the pocket of the pant. The pant was seized. Detail panchanama of
the trap was prepared on the spot.
04. The file of complainant Rathod was seized. After seizure of file, our
signatures were obtained. I put my signature on the panchanama.
Panchanama now shown to me is the same. Contents thereof are true and
correct. Panchanama is at Exh.No.15. I can identify the currency notes if
shown to me."
ANALYSIS
7. On analyzing above evidence and on re-appreciation of the
same, it is evident that PW1 complainant himself appears to have
informed accused about he bringing money and subsequently,
handed it over. It is pertinent to note that, there is no demand by
accused on the relevant day. Thus, in absence of any demand, even if
tainted currency found in possession of accused, case of prosecution
of demand and acceptance of bribe to attract the charges cannot be
accepted and law is fairly settled on such point.
{8} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008
8. Learned counsel for respondent has pointed out that, it is a
case of deliberate thrusting for false implication. He also took this
Court through the cross-examination faced by PW2 Wakharkar,
shadow pancha.
PW2 shadow pancha in cross-examination admitted that he is
unable to recall the events which took place on the day of trap. He
also admitted that he cannot give details of talks took place between
complainant and accused regarding the record. He also answered
that, on enquiry about bribe money, accused was shocked. He
further admitted that, ACB Officer did not record his statement.
Therefore, though this witness stated about accompanying PW1
complainant to the office of accused, his above answers does not lend
support to the prosecution case. He was a crucial witness. In light of
above answers, prosecution case cannot be said to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
9. Perused the judgment under challenge. Bearing in mind the
settled principles while dealing with appeal against acquittal, this
Court does not find any patent perversity so as to interfere in the
impugned judgment. PW1 Complainant's evidence has inflicted
serious dent to the prosecution case, as he in examination-in-chief
{9} CRI APPEAL 694 OF2008
itself stated about he himself handing over bribe amount even before
demand being raised by accused. For such reasons, there being no
merits in the appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly,
I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
