[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Rajesh Eknath Jagdhane And Another on 15 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:15806
CriAppeal-800-2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 800 OF 2014
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Dy. S.P.,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Nashik. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Rajesh Eknath Jagdhane,
Age 44 years, PCB No. 1279,
Ward No.1, Room No. 4149,
Shrirampur,
District Ahmednagar.
2. Dattatraya Karbhari Badhe,
Age 45 years, PCB No. 1778,
Police Head Quarter, Ahmednagar. ... Respondents
(Original accused)
.....
Mr. B. B. Bhise, APP for Appellant-State.
Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 09.04.2026
Pronounced on : 15.04.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. State challenges the judgment and order dated 12.07.2013
passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Special
Case No. 01 of 2005, acquitting the present respondents from charges
under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (PC Act).
CriAppeal-800-2014
FACTS IN BRIEF LEADING TO APPEAL
2. Complaint of PW1 Dinesh was entertained by ACB, Nashik,
where he alleged that, he was in business of carrying passengers in
his tempo. That, once while he was carrying two extra passengers
than the permissible limit of six persons, accused, a traffic police
constable threatened to file complaint unless he is paid Rs.400/- per
week. On settlement it was agreed to pay Rs.300/-, but as PW1 was
not willing to pay bribe, he lodged complaint with ACB office, who
arranged panchas, planned trap and executed the same. Accused were
apprehended, chargesheeted and tried vide above Special Case, but
came to be acquitted vide judgment and order dated 12.07.2013.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal, State
has come up in appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of the Appellant-State :
3. Learned APP submits that after PW1 approached ACB office,
independent panchas were summoned and introduced to
complainant. That, they heard story of complaint and signed over the
complaint. Necessary instructions as well as demonstration of
application of anthracene powder was given to complainant and
pancha, who were then made to approach accused. That, accused
CriAppeal-800-2014
demanded the bribe, but directed accused no.2 to accept the bribe on
his behalf. That, after money changed hands, necessary signal was
relayed and accused were apprehended. Learned APP submitted that,
as there was demand as well as acceptance, essentials ingredients for
attracting the charges were available. That, demand was made by
accused no.1, but amount was accepted by accused no.2 on
instructions of accused no.1. He further submitted that, in spite of
clear evidence to that extent, learned trial court had acquitted the
accused by holding that case of prosecution is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. He would submit that there is incorrect
appreciation and analysis of existing evidence. That, settled legal
position has also not been taken into account. He therefore prays for
interference by allowing the appeal.
On behalf of the Respondents-Accused :
4. Learned counsel for respondents would justify the order of
acquittal and submit that prosecution has miserably failed to bring
home the charge. According to him, demand is not proved by
adducing cogent and reliable evidence. That, complainant and pancha
witness are not lending support to each other and therefore case of
prosecution being weak, accused are rightly acquitted.
CriAppeal-800-2014
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
5. Re-appreciated the evidence on record. It seems that, in order
to establish its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of in all three
witnesses. PW1 seems to be complainant, PW2 seems to be shadow
pancha and PW3 is the Investigating Officer. The sum and substance
of their evidence can be summarized as under :
6. According to PW1, he is doing business of carrying passengers
in tempo after obtaining permit from RTO, Shrirampur, who had
allowed him to carry six passengers and he plied his vehicle between
Nagarsol to Shirdi. According to him, at one time there were two
extra passengers in his tempo and therefore accused no.1 Jagdhane, a
traffic police constable, told that he would file case or otherwise this
witness will have to pay him money. He told that Rs.400/- would be
required to be paid every week and after settlement, amount was
brought down to Rs.300/- per week. That, this witness did not wish to
pay bribe and therefore he went to ACB, Nashik and gave report
which he identified at Exhibit 32. In his further chief, he narrated
about panchas arriving, hearing his grievance, signing over his
complaint and they being given necessary instructions. Regarding the
main trap, it is his testimony that when he and pancha Anil
Nirbhavane went towards the bus stop, they did not meet accused and
CriAppeal-800-2014
therefore they returned and again went back to the Siddhant Hotel.
There, one constable made inquiry with the traffic police who was on
duty about duty hours of accused Jagdhane, who told that accused
would come at 2.30 p.m. and therefore, they again came back to
Rahata, waited there and again went to Shirdi at 2.30 p.m. While
they were near a hotel named Swaraj, accused was seen there and so
witness deposed that he parked his vehicle on one side and
approached accused. Pancha witness Nirbhavane was also with him.
According to him, accused and another police i.e. accused no.2 were
standing there. He and pancha went towards them. According to this
witness, accused asked as to what had happened last time. witness
deposed that he gathered that he was asking about money and then
he handed over bribe money by taking it out from left pocket of his
shirt and gave it to accused no.2 pillion rider. He further clarified that
when was handing over money to accused no.1, he asked this witness
to hand it over to Bade and therefore he handed over money to pillion
rider Bade. He further deposed that, he gave money because he was
under impression that they are likely to leave and so he should give
money immediately. Accused Bade kept the money in his shirt pocket
and predetermined signal was relayed.
CriAppeal-800-2014
While under cross, he has admitted that there were clear
directions to him not to hand over bribe amount to any other person
but accused Jagdhane. He admitted that on the day of trap, there was
no writing done at Nashik. He admitted that, search of accused
Jagdhane was taken but when it was learnt that accused would come
in the afternoon, it was decided to wait. He admitted that, after
stopping the vehicle, he had given call to the accused who had then
stopped and he himself went to accused hurriedly. He admitted that,
accused had questioned him as to what had happened. He also
admitted that, at the same time, accused was also talking with a third
person who was standing in front of him and then this witness took
out money and put it in the hands of Bade who was pillion rider. He
also admitted that, in this case he had no grievance against Bade. He
again candidly admitted that while handing over money to Bade, he
had no discussions either with Bade or Jagdhane.
7. PW2 Anil Nirbhavane, shadow pancha, testified at Exhibit 39
about visiting ACB office, meeting complainant, signing the complaint
and necessary instructions being given by the Investigating Officer.
Regarding the main event, he deposed that when they reached Shirdi,
initially PW1 was sent to search for the accused but he was not found
CriAppeal-800-2014
and therefore, complainant had come back and thereafter inquiry was
made with another police regarding duty hours of accused Jagdhane
and it was learnt that accused would come at 2.30 p.m. and therefore
they went and came back at such time. This time two persons were
seen coming on motorcycle and he and complainant went towards
them. According to him, complainant got down and pointed finger to
them and informed this witness that he is accused and therefore they
went near the motorcycle. According to him, the person who was
sitting on the front seat of the motorcycle asked complainant whether
he had brought the money and asked complainant to hand over
money to the person sitting on the pillion rider seat, who accepted it.
While under cross, he admitted that when he had been to ACB
office, panchanama was already prepared. He also admitted that, ACB
authorities had directed complainant to take search of the accused
no.1. He admitted that there were no instructions as to what should
be done if accused meet him. He admitted that, motorcycle and the
metador in which raiding party was present, were facing each other
and that, on seeing accused on motorcycle, complainant got down
from the metador. He answered that he does not remember whether
accused was talking with third person who was standing in front of
him. He also admitted that when complainant went to accused
CriAppeal-800-2014
Jagdhane, accused had asked as to what happened and at that time,
complainant had taken out bribe amount and offered it to accused
Jagdhane but he did not accept it and therefore complainant had put
the amount in the hand of pillion rider.
8. PW3 is the Investigating Officer.
9. Here, crucial evidence is of complainant and shadow pancha
and their testimonies are discussed as aforesaid. Further, in cases of
such nature, complainant is looked upon as interested person and
therefore, corroboration from independent corner like pancha is
insisted for. It is further settled position of law that in view of the
charge, demand and acceptance, which is sine qua non has to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the light of such legal
requirements, evidence of above two witnesses is re-appreciated and
re-analyzed.
10. It is pertinent to note that complainant has, in his chief, not
stated as to exactly when accused questioned him for carrying excess
passengers. He merely stated that, at one time in the year 2004, there
were two extra passengers. According to him, accused threatened to
file case and demanded Rs.400/- per week, but on settlement, it was
CriAppeal-800-2014
agreed to pay Rs.300/-. But exactly when this had happened has not
been stated by him either in chief or in his complaint at Exhibit 32.
11. Another peculiar feature which is emerging on careful analysis
of testimony of this witness is that, there is nothing to show as to
whether accused called complainant to pay the amount. Because,
complainant himself has stated that after reaching Shirdi, they had
searched for the accused since morning to afternoon. Therefore it is
doubtful whether accused had called complainant with bribe amount.
12. This witness PW1 in chief as well as in cross has deposed that
when accused not found, on inquiry with other constable, it was
learnt that, accused had duty hours from 2.30 p.m. and he would
come at 2.30 p.m. and therefore, raiding party was waiting till arrival
of accused at such time. Witness has deposed about accused Jagdhane
coming on motorcycle with accused no.2 and seeing them come on
motorcycle, complainant himself approached accused and seems to
have given him call to wait and thereafter, it appears from his
testimony that, accused had questioned him by saying, 'what
happened?'. Witness on his own accord states that, then he himself
gathered that accused was asking to bring money and therefore, he
offered bribe and gave it to pillion rider.
CriAppeal-800-2014
13. Apparently, there was no demand by pillion rider accused no.2.
It is not shown whether accused no.2 was aware or he was acting at
the behest of accused no.1 and in such capacity he had accepted the
bribe. Testimony of complainant itself therefore shows that accused
no.1 had not accepted the money. Complainant himself had handed
over cash to accused no.2 but prosecution has not shown that he had
abetted accused no.1 to demand bribe and then, as an accomplice, he
had accepted the bribe on behalf of accused no.1. Further,
complainant himself stated that he handed over money hurriedly
because he was under impression that accused were likely to leave.
14. Therefore with such quality of evidence on record, here, initial
demand is not proved. Even on the day of main trap, accused no.1
had not put up any demand and it is so evident from testimony of
PW1, who on his own accord seems to have offered bribe. Even he
has admitted in cross that there were directions to him by ACB to not
to pay bribe to anyone except accused no.1. But here, even such
instructions does not seem to have been followed. There is admission
of this witness in cross that, after accused asked him 'what
happened?', at that very moment accused was having conversation
with another constable who was also standing there and that time,
CriAppeal-800-2014
complainant handed over bribe to pillion rider. complainant himself
has candidly admitted in cross that at the time of handing over money
to accused no.2, there was no discussion either with accused no.1 or
accused no.2.
15. Similarly, on complete re-appreciation of evidence of Shadow
pancha, he is also found to be deposing that, when they went to
Shirdi, at that time complainant was asked by Investigating Officer to
make search of accused. Therefore, his such testimony clearly shows
that accused had not called complainant. Version of shadow pancha is
found to be contrary to that of complainant because he has deposed
that after complainant went towards motorcycle of accused, who was
sitting on the front side, accused asked complainant whether he
brought money. This is not at all stated by complainant himself. Even
this witness stated that complainant handed over tainted currency to
the pillion rider, and there is clear admission under cross that when
complainant offered amount to accused no.1, he did not accept it and
therefore, complainant had put money in the hands of pillion rider.
Thus, apart from his testimony to be contrary and at variance with
that of PW1, there is no corroboration.
CriAppeal-800-2014
16. To sum up, here, prosecution has failed to prove when exactly
there was initial demand. Accused had not called complainant with
money and it is so evidence because both, PW1 and PW2 are
consistently deposing that after reaching Shirdi, they had conducted
intensive search of accused no.1 and they waited for his arrival till
2.30 p.m and even on arrival, according to pancha, complainant gave
call to accused to stop and thereafter accused no.1 had asked 'what
had happened', but directly thereafter complainant had put bribe
amount in the hands of accused no.2 who has no nexus with the
alleged action by accused. Resultantly, with such quality of evidence,
as submitted, case of prosecution was indeed weak and rendered
doubtful. Therefore, the view taken by learned trial court is the
possible view which could also emerge on complete re-appreciation of
evidence. Hence, there being no merits in the appeal, following order
is passed :
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
vre
