[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Subhash Baburao Sable on 29 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:3651
ALS-171-2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO. 171 OF 2018
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Anti Corruption Bureau,
Jalna, Dist. Jalna. ... Applicant
Versus
Subhash Baburao Sable,
Age : 49 years, Occu. : Peerwadi,
Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna,
At present R/o. MSEB Colony, Jalna,
Dist. Jalna. ... Respondent.
[Orig. Accused]
.....
Mr. S. G. Sangle, APP for Applicant - State.
Mr. S. S. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 28 JANUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 29 JANUARY 2026
ORDER :
1. Present leave application by State arises out of judgment
and order of acquittal dated 08.09.2017 passed by learned Special
Judge & Additional Sessions Judge-3, Jalna in Special [PCA] Case
No. 14 of 2014.
2. Learned APP pointed out that, prosecution was launched
against respondent for commission of offence punishable under
sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, alleging that, for reduction of electricity bill, accused
ALS-171-2018
attached to MSEB Jalna, demanded bribe of Rs.3,000/- and therefore
on receipt of complaint, ACB authorities planned trap by arranging
panchas.
3. Learned APP further pointed out that, prior to main trap,
due verification of demand was got done by recording the
conversation between complainant and accused, and thereafter, only
on satisfaction, further pre-trap procedure was undertaken. That,
there was both, demand as well as acceptance, and accused was
apprehended.
4. According to learned APP, in spite of essential
ingredients like demand and acceptance is proved, case of
prosecution has not been accepted by learned trial court. That,
complainant and shadow panch were consistent, but undue
importance has been given that complainant was not a consumer of
electricity. The conversation script is also unnecessarily doubted.
There was valid sanction, but all crucial aspects are lost sight of by
learned trial Judge and thus, according to him, prosecution has good
case on merits in appeal and hence he prays to accord leave to file
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for accused justifies the order of
acquittal on the ground that prosecution has miserably failed to
ALS-171-2018
establish his case. He pointed out that, it has come in his evidence
that complainant himself was not all a consumer so as to accept his
version of demand of bribe. That, crucial aspects of demand and
acceptance are not cogently proved. According to him, at the outset,
there was no work of the complainant with accused and as such,
there was false implication. He pointed out that, sanction was
granted without application of mind and all such factors, according to
him, weighed on the trial court in acquitting the accused and hence
he prays to refuse leave.
6. Sum and substance of prosecution case in trial court was
that, for reducing electricity bill, accused demanded bribe of
Rs.2,000/-. Case of prosecution in trial court rested on the evidence
of PW1 Ashwin, original complainant; PW2 Subhash, shadow panch;
PW3 Murhari, sanctioning authority; PW4 Sadanand, another panch
to obtaining specimen sample voice of accused; and PW5 Vitthal is
the informant and Investigating Officer.
7. As usual, evidence of complainant is crucial. Further it is
necessary that, there has to be corroboration to the testimony of
complainant from independent corner i.e. shadow panch. Therefore,
PW1 Ashwin and shadow panch PW2 subhash are material witnesses.
In his testimony PW1 original complainant stated that, he
ALS-171-2018
was served bill of Rs.48,120/- and therefore, he approached accused
with a request to reduce it. It is alleged that, accused demanded bribe
for reducing the electricity bill. However, in witness box complainant
has stated that, demand was made by way of gesture by rubbing right
thumb on index finger. Thus, there is no oral demand and mere
gestures were allegedly to demand. Further, in cross examination,
complainant himself to be admitted that he was not consumer of
MSEB. Complainant's evidence shows that, even prior to demand, he
himself stated that, he had arranged the bribe amount. Rather he
admitted that, accused had asked him to make application to Deputy
Executive Engineer and not to him. It shows that, even accused was
not empowered to reduce the bill.
In further cross of complainant he seems to have
admitted that, previously also he had filed complaint against one
Prakash Kasliwal under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
8. As regards to shadow panch PW2 Subhash is concerned,
he too seems to have failed to mention about initial demand by
accused. Even this witness deposed about demand being made by way
of gestures.
Resultantly, when very demand of bribe has itself come
under shadow of doubt, further story or prosecution is rendered
doubtful.
ALS-171-2018
9. As regards to sanction is concerned, PW3 Murhari in his
cross examination has admitted that, PW1 Ashwin was not consumer
of MSEB, but in examination in chief of PW3 states that, PW1 was the
consumer of MSEB. However, as stated above, complainant himself
has admitted in cross examination that he was not consumer of
MSEB. This shows that, both are given contrary version and in view
of admission of complainant, very application of mind by PW3
sanctioning authority is also rendered doubtful.
10. Therefore, for above reasons, case of prosecution has
several lapses. Case being not proved beyond reasonable doubt, no
fault can be found in the manner of appreciation done by learned
learned trial court while acquitting the accused. No case being made
out on merits to accord leave, the same is required to be refused.
Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(i) Leave is refused.
(ii) Application is rejected.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
