[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Shakil Mohammad Taher Shaikh on 16 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:6608
Cri-Appeal-557-2015
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 557 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalgaon. ... Appellant
Versus
Shakti Mohammad Taher Shaikh,
Age : 46 years, R/o. 66, Baliram Peth,
Near RSS Office, Jalgaon. ... Respondent
(Orig. Accused)
.....
Mr. S. G. Sangle, APP for Appellant - State.
Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Respondent.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 12 FEBRUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 16 FEBRUARY 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Appellant - State challenges the judgment and order
dated 31.12.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Jalgaon in Special (ACB) Case No. 3 of 2013 acquitting
accused from charges under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. In short, prosecution was launched by Anti Corruption
Bureau against present respondent, a Junior Engineer in Town
Planning Department, Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon, alleging that,
Cri-Appeal-557-2015
for according permission for layout of three plots belonging to
complainant, there was demand of bribe of Rs.40,000/- per plot.
Therefore, on 23.07.2012 he approached Anti Corruption Bureau and
lodged complaint at Exh.10, which was made basis for investigation
and charge-sheeted accused. Upon trial, impugned order of acquittal
came to be passed. Hence, instant appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of State :
3. Learned APP would point out that, for according
permission for the layout of plots of complainant, accused had
demanded total amount of Rs.1,20,000/- for three plots. As
complainant was not willing, he approached Anti Corruption Bureau
and lodged complaint (Exh.10). After which, it is pointed out that,
Investigating Officer summoned panchas, undertook the exercise of
demand verification by recording conversation between complainant
and accused in presence of pancha, its panchanama being drawn, and
thereafter, only on getting satisfied, main trap was planned and
executed successfully. Complainant has deposed about accused
raising demand at the initial stage as well as subsequently when the
accused on his own accord visited hospital of complainant. That,
there were demands not once, but several times. Complainant
deposed to that extent in his evidence at Exh.9 and cross to the above
extent has remained almost intact.
Cri-Appeal-557-2015
4. He next submitted that, PW2 Subhash, shadow panch,
also an Executive Engineer, agreed to act as panch and accompanied
complainant at the time of demand verification as well as main trap.
He also supported the complainant's version, and as such, it is his
submission that, both, PW1 complainant as well as PW2 shadow
panch, were consistent on the point of demand.
5. He further pointed out that, mere variance in the timing
given by PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow panch in the witness
box, were of no significance as aspect of demand as well as
acceptance is cogently proved. The hands of accused were found to be
carrying anthracene suggested demand, and therefore, it is his
submission that case of prosecution ought to have been accepted.
6. He further pointed out that, though amount was found
lying on the table, it was kept by accused in the cabin of complainant.
Shadow panch was party to the same, and therefore, it is his
submission that there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecution
case merely on the count that there is variance in the testimony of
complainant and shadow panch on the point of currency kept in the
carry-bag.
For above reasons, criticizing the judgment of the learned
trial court on the ground of incorrect appreciation, he seeks
indulgence of this court.
Cri-Appeal-557-2015
On behalf of Respondent :
7. Justifying the order of acquittal, learned counsel for
respondent would point out that, essentials like demand are not
proved. That, complainant's evidence is silent about date of first
demand. That, moreover, complainant's version about demand is not
finding support from PW2 shadow panch. He further pointed out that,
evidence of PW2 shadow panch suggests that complainant, on his
own accord, offered bribe i.e. prior to very demand by accused, and
therefore, it is his submission that, demand has itself come under
shadow of doubt.
8. As regards to acceptance is concerned, he pointed out
that, admittedly, tainted currency was seized from the table and not
from the possession of the accused. There is admission to that extent
by Investigating Officer. He pointed out that, witnesses PW1
complainant, PW2 shadow panch and PW4 Investigating Officer are
inconsistent and are at variance on the points of timing, pre-trap
panchanama, its contents, and therefore, learned trial court rightly
dealt with the prosecution evidence and held it to be case of benefit of
doubt on account of failure of prosecution to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
Cri-Appeal-557-2015
BRIEF ACCOUNT OF EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
9. PW1 Dr. Ulhas, complainant, a doctor by profession, who
set law into motion, has deposed at Exh.9. In initial examination-in-
chief, he stated that accused was a Junior Engineer in the Town
Planning Department. That, he had three plots in the vicinity of
Pimprala and he had applied to the Town Planning Department for
permission of the layout and filed necessary proceedings. According
to him, accused accompanied him to pay visit to the said lands for
inspection and accused assured to put up proceedings for proper
sanction and permission. It is his further testimony that, accused
called him by phone in his office for discussion and that time told that
he will have to pay Rs.40,000/- each for the three permissions, and as
such, asked him to pay Rs.1,20,000/- and to pay Rs.50,000/-
immediately and remaining to be paid after permission. As he was
not intending to pay bribe, he deposed that, on 23.07.2012, he had
gone to the Anti Corruption Bureau office and lodged complaint
(Exh.10). After which, he narrated all procedure taken by
Investigating Officer in presence of pancha. In paragraph no.2, he
stated that, Investigating Officer gave voice recorder with panch
witness More for the purpose of recording conversation between him
and accused and they accordingly approached accused in the office of
accused. When he inquired about permission, accused again
Cri-Appeal-557-2015
demanded money and told that he would come to complainant's
hospital to collect Rs.50,000/-. The said panchanama of conversation
was drawn. In paragraph no. 3, he narrated about events that took
place on 24.07.2012 i.e. after necessary instructions by Investigating
Officer, and at that point of time, accused calling him to inform that
he being busy, he would come at 5:30 p.m. and he accordingly came,
and there was discussion about permission, accused demanded
Rs.50,000/-, which was taken out and given to the accused, who
accepted it, and then kept it on the table, followed by relay of signal.
While under cross, he admitted that, it would be correct to
say that accused made demand for the first time in his office. In
further cross, omissions are brought about accused raising first
demand of money in his office; about accused has called him for
discussion in his office by making phone call; and at such time,
accused telling him that he will have to pay Rs.40,000/- for each of
the plot and to pay Rs.50,000/- immediately. He admitted that, all
such contents are not appearing in the complaint or in his statement
recorded by police. He is unable to state whether conversation
between him and accused was transferred in any computer or pen
drive. He admitted that, on the next day of his visit to the office of
accused at 11:30 a.m., accused had come to his consulting room to
collect Rs.50,000/-. He answered that, the bag in which accused had
Cri-Appeal-557-2015
kept the amount was given by him to the accused and when raiding
party entered, at that time, amount was kept on the table. He is
unable to state what ACB did with the carry-bag. He again admitted
that it would be correct to state that on the next day of 23.07.2012 at
11:30 a.m., accused has come to his hospital for taking money and
had accepted 50 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- amounting to
Rs.50,000/-. He further admitted that he himself asked accused
during conversation "pachas kab lau ?". Therefore, as pointed, when
prior to demand, complainant himself offered bribe, apparently, there
is no demand by accused. In paragraph no.10 of the cross
examination, he admitted that, he had made phone call to the
accused, but conversation between him and accused was not
recorded.
10. PW2 Subhash, shadow panch, deposed at Exh.21 on the
point of accompanying complainant for verification of demand, but as
pointed out, according to him, which is contrary to PW1 complainant.
He claims that, voice recorder was with him. He deposed about
accompanying complainant to the office of Town Planning in
Corporation and accused to be not available to his table, and
therefore, complainant make him phone call, accused came there
within few minutes, and then he claims that, when complainant
asked about his work, accused told him that amount of Rs.40,000/-
Cri-Appeal-557-2015
for each plot would be required i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- and at that time,
complainant bargaining accused to reduce the amount, but he was
not agreed. Accused told the complainant that he should get the
amount reduced by his Saheb, and complainant himself thereupon
stated why directing unnecessary to Saheb, and he himself to do
work, and at that time, complainant himself asked accused that
where and what much amount should be paid.
11. Regarding the main trap, which took place in the hospital
of complainant, he has deposed in paragraph no. 3 that, complainant
again asked accused, when the measurement of his field is taking
place. Upon which, accused informed him that, layouts of all three
plots were prepared, but according to this witness, again complainant
asked accused to reduce the amount, and that time, he claims that
accused said that amount was proper and complainant gave notes to
the accused. Upon which, accused asked to give said amount in a
packet, but no packet was available. Accused accepted it, and kept it
on the table. After which, accused told complainant to give plastic
bag, but it was not available and the amount was therefore kept on
the table, followed by relay of signal.
While under cross, in paragraph no.7, he is unable to state
whether voice recorder was having memory card and whether it was
Cri-Appeal-557-2015
used. He denied voice recorder to be with him and he also admitted in
cross examination, in paragraph no. 8 that, complainant asked
accused "Kitne lagenge" and from such conversation, he claims to
have realized that previously some talks are taking place. He also
admitted that, complainant himself uttered the words "pachas kab
lau". He further admitted that, accused told complainant, "Sahab ke
pass de do". He further admitted that, till recording of statement, he
did not know that from whom said work was got to be done and
complainant had not informed him exactly when he has switched on
or switched off the voice recorder.
12. In the evidence of PW2 following omissions are brought in
his statement regarding accused saying that Rs.50,000/- should be
paid on next day; complainant asking whether he should bring the
said amount to the office or somewhere else; that accused replied to
complainant that amount will not reduced and it should be got
reduced from Saheb of accused.
ANALYSIS
13. From above discussion, as pointed out, here, it is
emerging that, prior to demand by accused, complainant seems to
have offered bribe. As submitted, witnesses i.e. PW1 complainant
and PW2 shadow panch are not consistent. According to
Cri-Appeal-557-2015
complainant, accused accepted currency on 24.07.2012 at around
11:30 a.m., but according to PW2 shadow panch, he does not give
timing and rather trap panchanama Exh.24 shows timing as 4:00
p.m. Secondly, evidence of PW2 shadow panch is silent about any
demand by accused and rather his testimony shows that complainant
on his own accord offered bribe to accused. According to PW2 shadow
panch, accused asked for packet/carry bag to keep currency, but
neither of it was available. Contrary to this, PW1 complainant stated
that, after accepting the bribe, accused kept the lying amount on the
table in carry-bag. Investigating Officer has admitted that, amount
was in carry-bag. Therefore, witnesses are not consistent in spite of
claiming him to be together, thereby rendering the acceptance
doubtful.
14. Evidence of PW1 complainant and PW2 shadow panch is
not consistent with the main trap panchanama. Rather as pointed
out, before demand by accused, complainant himself has questioned
when he should pay.
15. For above reasons and with such quality of evidence on
record, no fault can be found in the order of trial court for extending
the benefit of doubt as the prosecution having failed to prove the
charges beyond reasonable doubt. There being no merits in the
Cri-Appeal-557-2015
appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed and I accordingly proceed
to pass the following order :
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
